No-one actually thinks that UK's defence needs are going to be adequately catered for at 2.5 per cent of GDP. No-one thinks that you can command public support for the necessary tax rises to meaningfully increase defence spending while at the same time going 'your public realm will still be rubbish'
So could we, as a country, not accept the 'let's get angry over some obviously undeliverable cuts and an inadequate increase in defence spending' stage of our politics has been running for a decade now and has gone on long enough?
Actually, I realise at this point I would mildly prefer a government just made the soft choices with its eyes open. 'Screw it lads, let's just buy Russian gas and Chinese solar panels. We'll turn our entirely redundant aircraft carriers into concept cruise ships'.
First preference: government that makes hard choices.
Second preference: government that leans into soft choices
Third preference: Actually existing British governance 2014 to ????
This has always been my thing. Many countries embarrassed themselves with how they reacted to the 2014 invasion but only we combined aggression to Russia with deepening reliance on their gas, seemingly due to a misunderstanding of the wholesale energy market
Like lads if we're going all in on helping the Ukrainians win, maybe a good idea to stockpile gas in case we ever need to cut ties with Russia, as opposed to closing our storage facilities
The UK has never actually used much Russian gas. But your point still stands because without strategic reserves we are at the mercy of the market price in Europe, and pre-2022 the rest of Europe did use Russian gas.
Yeah this is the misunderstanding that the Government made. We didn't use much but it was our energy source of last reserve i.e. what we used when we had no choice because renewables were low or other gas providers were tapped out, etc. If that goes, then our energy because much, much more expensive
The thing that scares me is this...public services genuinely can't take any more cuts to pay for defence. The public, especially those that could lean reform will not forgive if public services don't improve (they won't care about Putin). So, the outcome of doing the right thing on defence....Reform
You may be right, but given how much Reform seems to pretty aligned with Trump, and if you were to be generous, ambivalent to Putin, how long might you be right for?
"We will raise taxes, provide services, and build out the military and defence industries as required" is a level of honesty I'm not sure a single European, Canadian, or Australian politician is currently prepared to pitch. I hope I'm proven wrong very soon.
One option would be to withdraw from east of Suez, redeploy assets currently supporting Israel, and enter into closer co-operation with France over CASD and the defence thereof. Suddenly frees up a lot of stuff.
Our armed forces are not (as far as non expert me can tell) designed for fighting a large land war. A lot of the money seems tied up in our aircraft carriers which I assume were built with China in mind. Presumably you don't need aircraft carriers if you can base your planes in Ukraine.
The Carriers were the result of the 1998 Strategic Defence Review, which before large-scale Chinese naval construction.
They will still be vital in any war with Russia, a significant number of Russian SSBNs are in the Northern Fleet, and we would need to break into their Bastions.
The big carriers are not cost-effective anti submarine platforms. And the 'break into their bastions' strategy is brain dead in that it deliberately creates a 'use them or lose them' situation, thus needlessly magnifying the risk of WW3.
I remember reading about the 2010 strategic review, and the idea was like "Obviously this is unsustainable now, but once we return to pre GFC growth it will of course be changed.".
Kind of a shame that pre GFC growth never came back...
Doesn't this give them the excuse they needed, his comment in Paris tonight would suggest the paradigm has shifted so they have an opportunity to capitalise on that? If he fails to do so, that's his epitaph
2.5% simply isn't enough and trying to force even steeper cuts to make up for it is just going to make any claims that you're 'not going back to austerity' fall even more flat. Gotta do something new, for better or worse
The thornier question is what we should spend that increase *on*. If we're assuming a strategic environment without USN - do RN and MN take over the Atlantic? At what strength? We want a larger army, but how large, and with what kit? Do we keep going for bespoke UK kit or buy off-the-shelf?
My general feeling (c.f. the fact that none of the actual post-2014 cuts have ever really materialised in terms of meaningful savings) is this is either a tough decision (govt just grows up) or a painful one (as you describe).
Do you mean Europe or something else. Kier is treading a fine line given all the muppets attacking him, I see it as a closer l alignment with Europe. Given Kemi's speech, I would say Kier is doing OK.
I mean that the British government needs to spend considerably more money on defence and the pissing contest of 'he is better than a frankly deranged leader of the opposition' is not something I am interested in.
And he is doing that. Still needs to talk to countries. This is moving fast, and if you think we could see an alignment with US and Russia then you have a great crystal ball. At least it's brought Europe together. Silver linings and we will spend more on defence. Reform must be in shock
Was listening to the Singaporean budget this morning(where I’m most likely to go back to post PhD completion)and genuinely despaired at the comparison to the UK. Reeling off tonnes of schemes talking about funding and planning well into the 2040s!We can’t plan for 5 minutes into the future ourselves
I don't even think this is a hard choice - it's literally a free "get out of election pledges" card. Solve all your fiscal straightjacket issues by saying "we have to raise tax because defence" and then use it to build hospitals too.
I so agree. I’m a Labour member and I’m disillusioned with Starmer’s lack of ability to start building a narrative around the country they’d like to see. Their self imposed fiscal rules prevent them from doing anything revolutionary and the country needs a revolution!
We need o be back in the EU or Single Market at least. Our young folk also need those wider horizons and our companies and projects need to work on a larger scale.
One might hesitate to say that that was why they were elected! Perhap it was like the Johnson vs Corbyn 2019 election, simply anyone else to get the Tory candidates out; which explains Labour's vote share?
Genuinely, as someone who does pay income tax: oh my God why can't they just raise income tax.
Like, they'll happily play around with all the other promises! (speaking of: raising employer NICs seems like onviously not a good idea if you want raw growth? What was with that?!)
(Tbh, from their perspective 'tough' clearly means 'makes peoples' lives worse' not, like, 'requiring actual thought' or 'will have the Daily Mail criticise us [like it isn't already an anti-Labour partisan paper]')
Why on earth would you want to increase ‘defense’ spending? It has little to do with actual defense and far more to do with ramping up military aggression against competing nations, all in the interest of the wealthy, and to protect a neoliberal austerity status quo that has clearly failed
Should be probably doing it more, but ppl tend to underestimate how difficult it is and overestimate how much it can raise. The tax burden is already record high, this isn't the US.
Example: is a retiree with £1M in assets rich enough to be taxed? If not, why? If yes, can you imagine the fallout?
1. We have quite enough nukes. What is needed is a lot more conventional arms and munitions.
2. Privatising essential services creates a colossal money pit that sucks in govt subsidies like a vacuum while offshoring the profits to avoid tax anyway. Total non-starter.
This was obviously a rhetorical exaggeration in both directions (although only one functionally operational nuke sub is not quite enough), and you are right.
The point is that the left's long adopted position on that the defense budget is something we can do without has to be re-evaluated ASAP.
Ah, that's fair. I was thinking in terms of warheads rather than delivery systems. You're right there - at least 4 SSBNs are needed to ensure a minimum of 2 active.
But yes, defence spending at a time of active immediate threat needs to be a priority. We don't have the luxury of being an ocean away.
As I head into late middle age, I am surprised that my politics have barely changed since my youth except in one area: defence. People like Putin actively want to do you harm, and the only thing that ultimately dissuades them is bullets and bombs.
What a load of old shit. Imagine growing up fat and rich in the security of NATO and the first world and so sheltered that you can call defence spending "neoliberal". Go tell that to Ukrainians.
Seems like genocides only matter for this buffoon when perpetrated by countries he intensely dislikes (Israel). Ukrainians and Uyghurs are not worthy victims.
The first world produces a lot of types like him, sheltered wannabe Che Guevaras who long for the revolution yet wouldn't survive a day without mummy's credit card in the third world, whose people they purpose to champion.
Nope, it's not pure fiction that I get to type this from the peace and prosperity of a German city while Ukrainians have to spend the night at underground bomb shelters.
Shouldn’t you be addressing that to the man who has invaded a sovereign nation and who has also belligerently cut sub-sea cables, poisoned innocent people in our country, threatened to launch a hypersonic missile at the UK, murdered internal political opponents and suppressed Russian media?
Defending against Russian invasion is laughable. The rest - well that would be the wider context in which ramping up military spending is occurring.
WSWS perspective is good in this regard : https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2025/01/03/aqoi-j03.html
I’m making the wild assumption that you are in the UK? So yes laughable that Russia would choose to invade the UK. What possible reason would they have to do that. It’s not going to happen.
So how close do you propose to let them get before you push the button on a massive defence upramp that is probably going to be way too late? Poland? Germany? France? Jersey? Any of this have any historical resonance?
When you write something as painfully 6th form politics student as you did, you don't merit the introduction of serious ideas & observations, you only deserve mockery
Perhaps you’d prefer a longer explanation that provides context for my objection to increasing military spending. It might be less painful for you and help calm you down from your vitriol and trite, angry remarks. This article provides good context:
Does this explain Russia’s unilateral and imperialistic invasion of a sovereign state? should we all naval-gaze and read articles like this instead of being able to defend ourselves if they come for us? So many questionssssssss
I think it’s important to read widely, including from sources you may not agree with. That site has many useful articles, including a significant number on Ukraine, Russia, and NATO.
Of course, we may fundamentally disagree, but it’s still worthwhile to try to understand other perspectives.
If your point remains that European nations don’t need to increase defence spending with an aggressive, war-crime committing militaristic threat on our doorstep, then I’m not sure that reading articles which share/support your view are going to help me, sorry chief.
“Sorry everyone, we’ve had to break our self-imposed fiscal rules, in order to address the urgent matter of rearmament in the face of American isolationism, for the govt’s top priority, security of the nation”.
More like, the sad part is someone might resign, and then Starmer will shrug and replace them. Because he’s “ruthless” (which is not good leadership if you ask me).
redeem is a strong and flippant term absolutley. but the need to raise money in the way Sunak tried with the H&SC Levy and threshold freezes in spite of the constraints of their manifesto is now facing this govt, and fronting up hard financial choices is a quality of its own right
The problem is also that they made a bunch of silly election promises they can’t possibly keep. Fiscal rules, no major tax increase, while fixing everything that’s falling apart. You can pick 2 but not 3 of those.
Comments
Second preference: government that leans into soft choices
Third preference: Actually existing British governance 2014 to ????
Gentleman cutters. The Lib Dems didn't want to be cutters did they, but cut the state they did, and I, for one, salute them for it.
This is now, finally (hopefully), the end of 'we can incentivise the markets to fix it' school of national econ planning/policy.
Please can we have some key levers back in the hands of the State - steel for one, electricity for two
They need to build industrial strategy around this so that it could even drive economic growth 😯
They will still be vital in any war with Russia, a significant number of Russian SSBNs are in the Northern Fleet, and we would need to break into their Bastions.
Kind of a shame that pre GFC growth never came back...
Fracking licenses?
Something as revolutionary as PFI was?
Necessity breeds invention, and its necessary to tool up.
'Rachel Reeves plans to abolish the triple lock to fund Trident replacement'
Russia would shriek of course but 🤷♂️
It’s quite elegant. Russian money supporting the rearming of Europe to defend itself from Russian aggression
We are in a crisis here and it is ridiculous that we are fannying about on the issue of Russian assets.
This is where a competent communications chief would have come in.
They could (carefully) raise the money MMT/tax rises/long term debt etc.
However, as a nation, do we have the people and skills for what is required. Dearth of construction workers for a start.
By their framing shall ye know them.
Like, they'll happily play around with all the other promises! (speaking of: raising employer NICs seems like onviously not a good idea if you want raw growth? What was with that?!)
Sell r NHS to highest bidder and buy more nukes.
Example: is a retiree with £1M in assets rich enough to be taxed? If not, why? If yes, can you imagine the fallout?
"Corporations" have recently been taxed more btw, how did it go for the government? How would taxing them even more go?
2. Privatising essential services creates a colossal money pit that sucks in govt subsidies like a vacuum while offshoring the profits to avoid tax anyway. Total non-starter.
The point is that the left's long adopted position on that the defense budget is something we can do without has to be re-evaluated ASAP.
But yes, defence spending at a time of active immediate threat needs to be a priority. We don't have the luxury of being an ocean away.
And of course, you advocate for privatisation too—the cherry on top of the neoliberal dream.
There is no comparison to be drawn. Unless of course you want to look at the role of US imperialism.
Europe’s persistently low defense spending/GDP ratios should tell you no one here wants to spend more. Too bad. We have to.
For a perspective that doesn’t centre liberal warmongering: https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2025/01/03/aqoi-j03.html
‘If you desire peace, prepare for war’
WSWS perspective is good in this regard : https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2025/01/03/aqoi-j03.html
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2025/01/03/aqoi-j03.html
Of course, we may fundamentally disagree, but it’s still worthwhile to try to understand other perspectives.
Should I focus on the broader picture of capitalism itself rather than the specific manifestation of neoliberalism?
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2025/01/03/aqoi-j03.html
Bet you think Greenland is just asking for it.
“Sorry everyone, we’ve had to break our self-imposed fiscal rules, in order to address the urgent matter of rearmament in the face of American isolationism, for the govt’s top priority, security of the nation”.
There. Sorted.
an electorate that can only be infantilised
If the answer is "No", then invest in defence, invest in Ukraine, and do it NOW!!
Not spending enough now will cost far more in the near future, and not just in money.
Don't let alone few fishermen and bigots take the UK down!