Forum menu
I think we’ll be seeing a rapid increase in nuclear proliferation for many countries.
let’s face it, if 11 years ago Ukraine had retained nuclear capability and told Putin - “step foot in Ukraine and we’ll flatten Moscow” then we would not likely be in this position we are today.
Again, look at the Middle East - if Iran and neighbours had nuclear capability, Israel would be kept in her box and been a far better neighbour as against the petulant bully we have seen in recent years.
Again, look at the Middle East - if Iran and neighbours had nuclear capability, Israel would be kept in her box and been a far better neighbour as against the petulant bully we have seen in recent years.
For a government to watch these events unfold over the last few weeks and not respond by increasing defence budgets would be utter madness
Fine, whatever path your taking - but many folk have spent the last few months going - there's no money, black-holes , inherited an economic shortfall and all that guff but now the same people have no problem with money just appearing to pay for it.
It's not even moderately critical thinking to notice this.
Next time there's an argument for needing money for regular society stuff (like yesterday) that's not involving the military can we use the same logic they have applied to defense?
(To be fair you could make a simple case for increasing spending and defence at any time. There's always been a terrorist, axis of evil, WMD - whatever.)
I do feel we're being led down a very familiar path with the Labour party though, only we've learnt nothing and it's accelerating due to lack of popularity.
Money spent on defence will mean money not being spent elsewhere. In the short term. Not because the government can't create more currency... it can, and does... but because there are negative effects of creating too much too fast without making it clear how you will recover it.
If we’re increasing the defence budget I hope the money is spent with UK and European companies and not US.
The current headline on the bbc says international aid will be cut to fund the increased defence spending, so it hasn't "just appeared".
If you want Labour to be more like Reform... vote Reform.
So the only alternative to Reform that Labour can offer is to be more like them?
Well it's the sort of logic which obviously appeals to centrists......if you can't beat 'em join 'em, but how did that very same strategy work out of Rishi Sunak?
So we have Labour being like Reform, the Tories being like Reform and Reform being like Reform. Come on Lib Dems, you know you want to be like Reform. What a ****ing mess.
So the only alternative to Reform that Labour can offer is to be more like them?
Not at all.
But vote UKIP, vote Brexit, vote Reform, and politicians will take that vote into consideration when listening to voters.
If you don't want Reform to set the agenda, don't vote for them. It's not clever, it's self-defeating.
let’s face it, if 11 years ago Ukraine had retained nuclear capability and told Putin - “step foot in Ukraine and we’ll flatten Moscow” then we would not likely be in this position we are today.
Ukraine was quite happy to get rid of their nukes because they didn't have a nuclear weapons programme to maintain them. They were compensated and thought that they had an agreement under the Budapest Memoranda (and other agreements) to protect Ukraine.
It was a boost to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to get rid of weapons from the third largest nuke-equipped nation in the world and for twenty years had been an example for other states to not bother developing nukes. I don't think that anyone in 1994 saw twenty years into the future.
The 2014 invasion of Crimea, spreading into approx 7% of Ukraine's total area, wasn't dealt with effectively by the west. Arguably Ukraine's nukes, had they still existed, would have been an excuse and a target for Russia as a prelude to invasion in any event.
I think we’ll be seeing a rapid increase in nuclear proliferation for many countries.
At the time the agreement was considered to be a good one, but ignoring it in 2014 will undoubtedly cause consideration of the development of nukes in other nations that now justifiably feel threatened by their neighbours
The key thing now is for Europe to get its act together, which it has failed to do for 10 years, and stabilise the security of Ukraine and therefore Europe. It's going to cost, but a stronger Europe might reduce the perceived need for further nuclear states within Europe at least.
But vote UKIP, vote Brexit, vote Reform, and politicians will take that vote into consideration when listening to voters.
If you don't want Reform to set the agenda, don't vote for them. It's not clever, it's self-defeating.
Well that is the first time that I have heard a staunch remainer on stw claim that Brexit is what the voters wanted and that it was right for politicians to listen to them.
Personally I am a bit more skeptical that was necessarily was what was first and foremost on voters minds.
Anyway be that as it may it is widely accepted that in today's political crises which have gripped western democracies voters have become highly cynical in their attitudes towards what they see as discredited establishment politicians, and it is much more a case of voting against something rather than a case of voting in support of something. See the 2024 UK general election result as a recent example of that.
In the case of UKIP it has long been seen as a vehicle to express a protest vote against establishment parties rather than support for UKIP itself. During the 2013-14 period in particular UKIP was topping national elections and yet despite that I believe that in their entire history they only ever managed to win one single parliamentary seat in their own right (as opposed to defections from the Tories)
Voters have repeatedly used UKIP as a protest vote whilst not necessarily being willing to give them any significant political power.
If Labour politicians cannot see these self-evident facts, and how it is linked to a political crisis which is largely affecting all the Western democracies, then they really need to go away and have a long hard think. Obviously the unpalatable conclusion they might come to though is that the underlying issue is the political-economic model which they are all welded to.
Challenging the very core of your beliefs is never easy. Although necessary.
Well that is the first time that I have heard a staunch remainer on stw claim that Brexit is what the voters wanted and that it was right for politicians to listen to them.
I didn't say it was right, I said it's what happens.
If you voted for Brexit, and now complain about the way politicians have shifted the way they talk about immigrants. What did you expect?
If you vote for Reform now, expect more of the same.
What did you expect?
Well I expected the Labour Party at the very least not to rake the gutter for cheap racist votes with Reform UK style dog-whistling, is that really too much to hope for?
The UK is out of the EU but I fail to understand how, for example, that somehow justifies a Labour government denying British citizenship to successful asylum seekers because they made a "dangerous journey".
Perhaps you can explain it to me? Personally I find it utterly deplorable as I would do if it was a Tory government's policy, although even more so precisely because it is a Labour government's.
Didn’t you vote to ‘take back control’ Ernesto?
Well this is what you voted for. It’s happening, it’s a bit late in the day to be getting squeamish about the course it set the country on.
The Labour version of it is the most benign immigration policy presently available in the current post-Brexit climate (Bar a Lib Dem government). The Tories wanted to ship everyone to Rwanda and Reform want to drown them all in the channel
The people (including yourself) have spoken and apparently this is what ‘they’ wanted. To paraphrase the favoured rhetoric of your fellow Brexiteers… you won… get over it 😉
Well this is what you voted for.
So you are backing this absurd claim that racist dog-whistling from a Labour government is the inevitable consequence of leaving the EU.
Well that's quite something. Why do you think that a Labour government cannot embrace immigration and nationality policies that aren't racist now that the UK has left the EU?
Are you suggesting that EU membership guaranteed in some way that the UK's immigration and nationality legislation was not racist?
With the spectacular rise of the far-right across the EU are you seriously suggesting that as long as countries stay within the EU racism towards immigrants and asylum seekers cannot be a problem?
I find it astonishing that an organisation which is inherently racist (there's a clue in the name) should be offered up as some sort bulwark against growing racism, and not least because of the overwhelming evidence which suggests the complete opposite.
The Brexit vote - which you vocally supported and still defend - is the equivalent of voting for Le Pen in France, the AfD in Germany or Georgia Meloni in Italy
Simple as that
So to hear a Brexiteer now complaining about this country having shifted to the right on immigration… seriously?
The Lexiteer philosophy was always hopelessly naive misguided nonsense. At the end of the day Brexit was a right wing project, largely based on racism and small-minded insular nationalism.
When you find yourself on the same side of the argument as Nigel Farage, Aaron Banks, Mark Francois and Bill Cash, among so many other loons, you may need to ask yourself some pretty serious questions…. like the Mitchell and Webb sketch ‘are we the baddies?’
To now complain about the direction of travel of a country that voted for the most right wing racist project this country has ever seen, on the strength of a campaign like that, with Nigel Farage stood in front of a poster showing a line of brown people with the strapline ‘Breaking Point!…. Really?
As Kelvin asked… what did you expect?
You broke it…. you own it.
So it turns out that Nigel Farage was right all along :
Reform UK’s newly published manifesto has pledged to cut spending on overseas aid by half, claiming it would save £6bn. -
The defence spending is the equivalent of £6bn a year extra from 2027
So both Nigel Farage and Keir Starmer have figured out where is the best place to save £6bn from..... the aid budget.
But here's the problem.... despite cutting aid being likely popular with bigots who might be inclined to to back Reform UK there is also a risk of losing support to the LibDems and the Greens :
Downing Street insiders believe that cutting the aid budget could be popular with the type of voters inclined to back Reform UK that Labour needs to retain. However, they acknowledge there is a risk they could lose support over the policy to the Liberal Democrats and Green party.
I guess that best solution would be for Lammy and Starmer to do as they have done and emphasis just how incredibly difficult and painful it was to make the decision. Their faux tears might possibly do the trick.
Although as it turns that Farage was right long before Starmer about slashing the aid budget, as a way to save money, then the obvious response might be to listen more carefully to what Farage has to say in the future?
Not simply because of his valued judgement but also to figure out what the Labour government's policies are likely to be a few months down the line.
When you find yourself on the same side of the argument as Nigel Farage, Aaron Banks, Mark Francois and Bill Cash, among so many other loons, you may need to ask yourself some pretty serious questions…. like the Mitchell and Webb sketch ‘are we the baddies?’
Oh the ironing. It's you mate who are now on the same side of the argument as Nigel Farage and other assorted loons.
So are you Ernie. Stll wedded to the cult of brexit
I’m merely despairingly accepting the post-2016 status quo that you and the other 52% voted for
Nothing to do with me guv.
I’ve had quite a few years to get used to it by now. I take no pleasure in, but I’m quite bemused by, the vehemence of your buyers remorse.
I’ll say it again… this is what you voted for.
Which bit didn’t you get?
Suck it up buttercup.
It’s on you.
Some disingenuous ideas above...
Starmer ramping up military spending, due to the threat from Russia to the whole of Europe, and Trumps USA stating pretty clearly that they are not our friends any more, or certainly not to be counted on for anything, is a simply a sensible reaction to the current geo-political landscape.
And that money has to come from somewhere - questionable parts of the foreign aid budget seems like an obvious place to start*, it's either that or tax rises, or cuts in other parts of public spending, neither of which would go down very well with the electorate.
That is not the same as Farage doing the same thing because he's inherently racist, it's false equivelence x1000!
* https://icai.independent.gov.uk/html-version/uk-aid-to-india-review/
The UK provided around £2.3 billion in aid to India between 2016 and 2021 - a country that can afford a space programme clearly does not need foreign aid. I appreciate that the 'foreign aid' might just be a bit of a bribe to countries like India, to grease the wheels for other types of coopereration/business deals etc, but that's not what aid is for.
Well I expected the Labour Party at the very least not to rake the gutter for cheap racist votes with Reform UK style dog-whistling
Look at any poll you care to choose, and it'll tell you that around 70% of the population think that immigration is too high. It's been about that figure for years now. That's pretty much the start middle and end of why folks are voting Brexit, UKIP, or Reform. Those are the same people that Labour need votes from, Elections are 'beauty contests' draw your own conclusions.
Matty. They have multiple options from taxing the rich to creating more money.
This is pure right wing performative dog whistling
Utterly disgusting. Self defeating and wrong
Nickc
Brexit increased immigration as was stated at the time would happen
Labour could start telling the truth rather than meekly accepting the lies and propaganda pumped out by the right wing propaganda machine.
Once again its this weird notion that labour cannot alter public opinion despite the fact its being moulded and manipulated by the right. The right can do it easily but the left ( not that labour are) just have to go along with it
Its a weird notion
I'm old enough to remember when the excuse by Centrists for Labour not doing anything about Brexit was because they weren't in power.
Starmer couldn't give a stuff a about EU/Brexit/Immigration - he just took whichever side would lead him to power and keep him there.
Time to admit the only time when Centrists got annoyed with Starmer is when he was looking at banning smoking in pub gardens.
Anyway the uber-prat is pretending we need to cut foreign-aid to *pay-for* more defence spending. (Wasn't he on record for criticising the Tories for cutting foreign-aid? Just like everything else he flips on.)
That foreign-aid cut which makes zero difference to the military budget spend (also doesn't add up) is only there to yet again please the Reform flock.
Prior to 2016, immigration wasn’t anywhere near the top of most peoples agendas. Since Dave started running scared of the man frog, the right have been emboldened to put it front and centre and use it as a catch-all scapegoat for all the ills of the country
That's just the reality of the situation. Immigration went up substantially under the Tories at the time time as they endlessly demonised them and threatened them with Rwanda etc. because it had too. The UK economy simply can’t function without a ready supply of cheap labour.
This country needs immigrants but woe betide any politician that utters that simple truth. In this sepia-tinged, Brexity, post-truth theme park, nobody wants to hear it. Just like they don’t want to hear that the exchequer would have a damn site more in tax revenues if Brexit hadn’t knocked 5% off our GDP. You can’t mention that either.
In other news Labour have now sat idly by as Ofgem ave raised the price cap several times in a row. (Not to mention the horrific state of the water service and price.)
Might not be a bad idea for them to stop and take a look what they could do for the economy that might make a difference instead of blustering through the right-wing playbook of excuses.
April is sure going to be interesting for the average person.
I guess Starmer is pinning his popularity on beefing up the war horse. In times of domestic prosperity this might work but not currently.
I guess Starmer is pinning his popularity on beefing up the war horse. In times of domestic prosperity this might work but not currently
Oh I don’t know. The country is full of armchair generals who still go all misty-eyed at the thought of the Union Jack flying over Port Stanley and Maggie in a tank
They also think, when it comes to foreign aid, that ‘we need to look after our own first
It’s on you.
The evidence is clear for anyone to see.....Starmer has announced a significant increase in defence and the slashing of international aid as a direct response to Nigel Farage's best mate becoming United States President a few weeks ago.
Starmer will be meeting Donald Trump for the first time since his reelection shortly he very clearly wants Trump to see what a good boy he has been. Starmer has already discussed with Trump over the phone how just like him he is slashing regulations to allegedly stimulate growth.
And yet despite everyone agreeing that Starmer announcing the increase in defence is a direct consequence of Trump becoming US president the usual half a dozen suspects on here want to somehow link it up with Brexit.
It turns out that Starmer is paying for this by slashing foreign aid because of Brexit. Which of course ignores the glaringly obvious fact that this current right-wing government goes for soft targets when looking to find money, eg winter fuel allowance and the two child benefit cap, with total disregard to the consequences.
Presumably all those right-wing governments in EU member states will be doing things quite differently and the fact that the UK has taken a line it has isn't the current Labour government's fault at all, it turns out that it's actually more my fault.
I remember the fanatical pro-EU punters on here insisting that EU membership was vital to protect us from the worse excesses of the Tory governments, protecting us from Labour governments was never mentioned.
Anyway it provides an interesting lesson to see middle-class pseudo-liberals on here not rushing to condemn Starmer for slashing international aid, as they would have of course had it been a Tory PM, but instead try to deflect criticism by blaming both Nigel Farage and me.
It turns out that unlike Tory governments Labour governments are not necessarily responsible for their own actions.
And yet despite everyone agreeing that Starmer announcing the increase in defence is a direct consequence of Trump becoming US president
Are they agreeing that? It was in the manifesto which was out way before trump got re-elected
The cuts to international aid are rubbish though. Likely a false economy, definitely a dereliction of our duty
And yet despite everyone agreeing that Starmer announcing the increase in defence is a direct consequence of Trump becoming US president
Well… indirectly, but it’s pretty disingenuous and simplistic to see it like that.
As well as everyone else in Europe, the UK is going to have to face an increased threat from an emboldened, expansionist Putin who’s about to be rewarded by Trump for his aggression, while Ukraine will be punished for its resistance
To not increase defence spending in the face of this new reality would amount to negligence by whichever party was in power.
What else would you suggest Starmer does? Nothing?
Are they agreeing that? It was in the manifesto which was out way before trump got re-elected
So you think Starmer announcing yesterday, two days before his first face-to-face meeting with Donald Trump, that the UK would be significantly increasing defence spending is just a coincidence? Well possibly but unlikely I would have thought.
Btw Starmer and Reeves insisted that absolutely everything in Labour's manifesto was very carefully costed and allowed for, how did they say that this increase would be paid for?
What else would you suggest Starmer does? Nothing?
All depends exactly what the threat is - from who and how.
If it is Russia they are hardly going to invade the UK are they, it will all be cyber interference in which case we can forget tanks and missiles and move the current money to what we actually need to defend against. Increasing in a few years time may be too late with such a pressing matter...
What else would you suggest Starmer does?
Not follow Nigel Farage's suggestion of raiding the foreign aid budget for £6bn
I'm sorry if I hadn't made that clear.
So you think Starmer announcing yesterday, two days before his first face-to-face meeting with Donald Trump, that the UK would be significantly increasing defence spending is just a coincidence?
Events, dear boy. Events….
So, given that the whole post Cold War security arrangements in Europe are presently been torn up, I’ll ask you again…
What would you have him do? Nothing?
France was also left in the dark: Starmer spoke to Macron by phone about the details only once they had been made public, despite the fact that the two leaders had been working closely on support for Ukraine.
Perhaps Macron should have been informed of Labour's manifesto commitments and it would not have come as such a surprise. And apparently the rest of the cabinet too.
*sigh*
I’ll ask you again…
What would you have him do? Nothing?
I have already answered your question binners. Are you seriously telling me that the only way a Labour government can find £6bn is to slash international aid by 40%?
Where's your outrage binners? You aren't usually shy in expressing it. Or do you believe that international aid was too generous under the Tories and that Starmer is right to slash it?
I can't remember you moaning about all that money going to foreigners when the Tories were in government. Nor do I recall you backing Nigel Farage when during the general election campaign he argued that international aid should be slashed by £6bn
But suddenly it's okay because your beloved Keir Starmer says it is. Is this what you call "grown-up" politics?
If anyones wondering why Starmer is jumping on the war/security/defence bandwagon maybe go and have a read of what the Falklands War did for a failing Thatcher govt in '83. Like many other struggling PMs before him, he'll be itching to send young men and women to die in a foreign country to cover up his own failings. It's pathetic quite frankly.
The money has to come from somewhere and again they’ll have looked at the polling.
Newsnight last night was pointing out that when asked where money should be cut from, one answer comes top every single time… foreign aid. Again… that’s just the reality of our delightful post-Brexit country.
If he doesn’t cut it from there, then where? The NHS budget? Education? I can see that going down a storm
Btw Starmer and Reeves insisted that absolutely everything in Labour's manifesto was very carefully costed and allowed for, how did they say that this increase would be paid for?
Like many other struggling PMs before him, he'll be itching to send young men and women to die in a foreign country to cover up his own failings.
Wheres he sending troops to die then?
Wheres he sending troops to die then?
Give it time. He needs to create the pretext for war first by ramping up tensions with Putin via a pointless arms race. We all know where this ends.
You think it’s Starmer that’s ratcheting up tensions? Not Putin?
You are Donald Trump and I claim my MAGA hat and watersports session with some Russian hookers! 😃
You think it’s Starmer that’s ratcheting up tensions? Not Putin?
What's changed between a year ago and now? Putin hasn't done anything he wasn't already doing. The only thing that's changed is the US presidency. He doesn't have to increase military spending just because Donald Trump demands it. Clearly though he's salivating at the prospect and recognises the boost it will give him domestically. Donald Trump is the best thing to happen to Keir Starmer since he became PM. Just think about that for a second.
What's changed between a year ago and now? Putin
As far as European security is concerned, pretty much everything
He doesn't have to increase military spending just because Donald Trump demands it.
He’s not doing that though, is he?
He’s responding to the increased threat to our national security due to the US placating/rewarding an expansionist Putin and signalling that it intends to leave Europe to sort its own defence out.
If he didn’t increase defence spending in light of the new, very different situation, then it would be a dereliction of his responsibility as PM
What's changed between a year ago and now? Putin hasn't done anything he wasn't already doing. The only thing that's changed is the US presidency. He doesn't have to increase military spending just because Donald Trump demands it. Clearly though he's salivating at the prospect and recognises the boost it will give him domestically. Donald Trump is the best thing to happen to Keir Starmer since he became PM. Just think about that for a second.
Are they agreeing that? It was in the manifesto which was out way before trump got re-elected
The 2.5% increase was in both the Con and Lab pre-election guff. Con set a firm date of 2030, while Lab didn't commit to a deadline.
That's strongly suggestive that it wasn't planned for by Lab during this parliament and possibly the next, however, world events have taken a turn and the US has hinted that it'll furl its European nuclear umbrella.
The US can no longer be considered reliable and so Europe needs to act, especially as there are still NATO members not reaching the suggested 2%, which was annoying President Trump back in 2016.
I'll criticise PM Starmer where it's warranted, but IMHO the main thrust isn't a sabre-rattling move by a vote-conscious Starmer to invade somewhere, it's a pragmatic response to guarantee Europe's security (with France, Europe's other nuke state). It'll also discourage the proliferation of nukes in nations that are now extremely concerned, feel vulnerable and don't have the decades of experience, policies, war-gaming, etc that's likely to prevent a nuclear escalation.
So, overseas aid or prevent nuclear war in Europe?
Crossed with binners, "...it would be a dereliction of his responsibility as PM" +1
You have access to all military intelligence?
No of course not but given our experience with military 'intelligence' in 2003 I'm not sure that should be the only driver.
I question the rise in defence spending and Starmer suddenly being interested in geopolitical military matters has anything to do with intelligence or events on the ground. It smells very much of political expediency, especially as he's taken the opportunity to throw some red meat to those deserting the labour party in favour of reform.
What you describe as ‘throwing some red meat to those deserting the labour party in favour of reform’ is viewed by the less hysterical as a perfectly sensible, pragmatic and necessary reaction to a very rapidly and dramatically changing security situation in Europe
If it is Russia they are hardly going to invade the UK are they
Probably not, so we should just leave the rest of Eastern Europe to its fate then should we?
The money has to come from somewhere
That is the standard mantra the Tories have always use to justify austerity.
"Centrists use Tory narratives to justify Tory policies shocker"
Although slashing 40% off the international aid budget was one policy which the Tories didn't think of.
Or more likely they did think of it but dismissed the idea due to the likelihood of an Opposition led outrage and having to justify it without being seen as "the nasty party".
Often a Labour government will be able to implement right-wing policies which a Tory government wouldn't be able to implement simply because Labour doesn't face the same level of opposition to right-wing policies that the Tories do.
As this latest example shows.
What you describe as ‘throwing some red meat to those deserting the labour party in favour of reform’ is viewed by the less hysterical as a perfectly sensible, pragmatic and necessary reaction
Blimey you guys really are capable of some quite spectaculor logical gymnastics aren't you? A year ago protecting the foreign aid budget would have been sacrosanct and the mere mention of reducing it would have resulted in the liberal centrists on here being utterly outraged. But now it's Starmer doing it to appease a rightwing fascist president and labour voting racists it's 'sensible and pragmatic'. The hypocrisy is astonishing quite frankly.
Yeah but the good news Daz is that it's a Labour prime minister who is slashing international aid, not Elon Musk as is the case in the United States, so apparently that's okay.
Even though Labour's manifesto 8 months ago committed a Labour government to increase the budget on international development work "as soon as the fiscal situation allows", not cut it by 40%
In fact Labour, the LibDems, the Greens, and Plaid Cymru, all had a policy of increasing international development back to 0.7% after it had been cut by the Tories. Only Reform UK had a policy of further substantial cuts, which is obviously now Labour policy.
You keep insisting that this is being done because Trump has told European leaders to do so. I’m not going to defend Trump but that isn’t what’s just happened.
He’s said ‘we’re not paying for your defence any more so you need to fund it yourself’. Every American president for as long as I can remember has said that America shouldn’t be paying for the defence of rich European nations, while they spend their money on nice things like health services and welfare systems instead. They’ve got a point.
This time they’ve called all our bluffs and they really mean it. Given that they’re also rewarding Russia for its territorial aggression at the same time, what else do you suggest European governments do? Just see how things pan out, while hoping Russia doesn’t fancy invading anyone else?
I doubt many electorates are going to be happy with no increase in defence spending and leaders saying ‘it’ll probably be fine, try not to worry about it too much’
Which means we’re all going to have to pay for increased arms which means making tough choices about where that money comes from. So if it’s not coming from ‘foreign aid’ a lot of which is nothing of the sort anyway, then where? Health budgets? Education? Where do you deem acceptable?
And just like slashing USAID will prove to be very shortsighted for the United States the same is likely to be true in the case of the UK.
As the chair of the House of Lords International Relations and Defence Committee pointed out in Nov 2020. :
We regard ODA spending to be an essential component of the UK’s international engagement, which also complements the UK’s defence and diplomatic activity. Cutting the 0.7% commitment would undermine the UK’s ability to tackle major long-term global challenges, such as climate change and mass migration, damage the UK’s international influence and soft power, and further disadvantage some of the world’s poorest people.
https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/importance-of-foreign-aid-programme/
Just see how things pan out, while hoping Russia doesn’t fancy invading anyone else?
I doubt many electorates are going to be happy with no increase in defence spending and leaders saying ‘it’ll probably be fine, try not to worry about it too much’
Do you really believe Russia will be invading the UK? And yes, it probably will be fine with keeping the budget the same % of GDP as it is now. Just need to concentrate on cyber defence against the enemy which appears to be Russia, old fashioned stuff like soldiers not so much.
I'm listening to Rory Stewart's book at the moment, the one about when he was an MP and Minister in various departments. And yes, a Tory one, but I think we can probably agree that he's on the left of that party and an internationalist at heart. Anyway, he worked in DIFID for a while and describes how he had discretionary spend of hundreds of millions of pounds and a departmental budget that was growing each month, whilst his job before that was at the Environment Dept where he couldn't get £100k for a litter strategy, and afterwards as Prisons Minister at the Dept of Justice, where everything was screwed, there was no money, and the ongoing prospect of less in the future.
If this money is needed, and it probably is, there is only one place it was coming from
Do you really believe Russia will be invading the UK?
Well their attempted invasion of a weak neighbour on their borders has been going so well that you can see why they might be tempted to attack a nuclear armed island a couple of thousands miles away in the North Atlantic. After they have conquered all the other countries in-between them and the Channel of course.
There is obviously no time to waste and the announcement of an increase in defence spending, originally scheduled for three years time, needs to be brought forward without delay.
Preferably before Keir Starmer gets to meet Donald Trump tomorrow.
Do you really believe Russia will be invading the UK?
Of course I don’t! I can’t see anyone suggesting that.
But as far as I’m aware, despite Trumps best efforts, for the time being NATO is still a thing and we’re still a member. The charter states that an attack on any member has to be defended by all.
Its now obvious that the US has zero interest in getting involved and won’t be committing anything to defend anyone unless they’re prepared to pay for it.
So if a further emboldened Putin, having successfully secured his territorial gains in Ukraine, and safe in the knowledge that the US isn’t interested, fancies a pop at anyone else on his borders, we might have a bit of an issue.
What’s the old saying about hoping for the best while planning for the worst? It would be criminally negligent for a government not to seriously address this rapid and dramatic change in the reality of European security. The countries bordering Russia are massively increasing their defence spending, so if they’re taking the threat of Russian aggression pretty damn seriously, we probably should too
for the time being NATO is still a thing and we’re still a member. The charter states that an attack on any member has to be defended by all.
Okay, so do you think Russia will invade a NATO country?
Putin is a chancer, much like Hitler and Trump. He thought the invasion of Ukraine would be over in a couple of days as nobody would do anything to stop it as they haven't seemed to stop him before. Taking on the block of NATO countries is another thing all together.
That won't stop him with cyber interference though, where is NATO when it comes to that?
That won't stop him with cyber interference though, where is NATO when it comes to that?
The challenge with Cyber capabilities/response is they often sit in an area where it's not in anyone's best interests to show their hand, so us the general public will likely never know what the response is/was.
A known unknown if you will.
That won't stop him with cyber interference though, where is NATO when it comes to that?
The government have said they’re increasing defence spending. They’ve not said ‘we’re going to go and buy a load of tanks!’. I’d imagine the cyber stuff is likely to be exactly where a lot of the increased funding is going
Preferably before Keir Starmer gets to meet Donald Trump tomorrow.
I think we all know (apart from binners) that the only reason he's boosting defence spending now is because he's off to the states tomorrow to kiss some fascist arse and he wants Trump to be all moist and tumescent before he gets down on his knees. I suppose its no different to any other PM before him but binners et al should at least drop the ridiculous pretence that this is something he absolutely has to do to keep the nation safe.
They’ve not said ‘we’re going to go and buy a load of tanks!’.
We know where it will go, it'll go into the pockets of whichever defence contractor has the most connected and corrupt lobbyists. We'll probably end up with another aircraft carrier which can't carry any planes.
Just see how things pan out, while hoping Russia doesn’t fancy invading anyone else?
I doubt many electorates are going to be happy with no increase in defence spending and leaders saying ‘it’ll probably be fine, try not to worry about it too much’
Do you really believe Russia will be invading the UK? And yes, it probably will be fine with keeping the budget the same % of GDP as it is now. Just need to concentrate on cyber defence against the enemy which appears to be Russia, old fashioned stuff like soldiers not so much.
Increasing cyber defense for the UK would come out of the defence budget, no?
Or is there a seperate budget for that?
Matty. They have multiple options from taxing the rich to creating more money.
This is pure right wing performative dog whistling
Utterly disgusting. Self defeating and wrong
I'm not saying I like it, I'm saying how it is.
Of course we could tax billionaires and offshore companies etc .. And there are plenty of reasons to do that to help with the NHS, social security, education etc etc. For many years now.
It wasn't done for arguably much more deserving cases so what makes you think it will be done to boost the defense budget? Lol.
All depends exactly what the threat is - from who and how.
If it is Russia they are hardly going to invade the UK are they, it will all be cyber interference in which case we can forget tanks and missiles and move the current money to what we actually need to defend against. Increasing in a few years time may be too late with such a pressing matter...
The problem is we're already at war with Russia - we just don't know it yet, we have been since the early 2010s. So far they are ahead.
Preferably before Keir Starmer gets to meet Donald Trump tomorrow.
I think we all know (apart from binners) that the only reason he's boosting defence spending now is because he's off to the states tomorrow to kiss some fascist arse and he wants Trump to be all moist and tumescent before he gets down on his knees. I suppose its no different to any other PM before him but binners et al should at least drop the ridiculous pretence that this is something he absolutely has to do to keep the nation safe.
They’ve not said ‘we’re going to go and buy a load of tanks!’.
We know where it will go, it'll go into the pockets of whichever defence contractor has the most connected and corrupt lobbyists. We'll probably end up with another aircraft carrier which can't carry any planes.
You're arguing a different argument... If the government didn't pay for any projects of any kind on the basis that any contractor would be a rip off, or at best a horrendous overspend, then nothing would ever get done, not just defence but any sector.
I think we all know (apart from binners) that the only reason he's boosting defence spending now is because he's off to the states tomorrow to kiss some fascist arse
We know where it will go
Well you certainly seem to know pretty much everything up there in the Todmorden bunker comrade, so maybe we should leave the countries defence to you 😃
In other news, Labour has accepted every recommendation of the Grenfell Inquiry, is establishing an organisation to enforce it and will be prosecuting the companies responsible
The centrist bastards!
Alex Krainer reckons it's all about resources:Alex Krainer: How Far Has Europe Deceived Itself?
Who? Could you summarise for us please?
I can’t watch YouTube videos as I haven’t got my tinfoil helmet with me 😃
Yep, but the subject was invasion of the UK or invasion of Nato country which I cannot see happening. $53 billion should already be enough without playing with arbitrary % of GDP. A nice headline to state raising by 0.n% by year 20nn but what will it really achieve?
Money going on stuff like this "This increase in defence investment will help us build a modern and resilient Armed Forces. It will accelerate the adoption of cutting-edge capabilities that are vital to retain a decisive edge as threats rapidly evolve. Targeted investment will reverse the hollowing out of recent decades and rebuild stockpiles, munitions, and enablers depleted after a period focused on international terrorism and global crises."
Increasing cyber defense for the UK would come out of the defence budget, no?
Probably not. The primary cyber defence agency is GCHQ which comes out of the intelligence budget.
In other news, Labour has accepted every recommendation of the Grenfell Inquiry, is establishing an organisation to enforce it and will be prosecuting the companies responsible
The centrist bastards!
I reckon that sums up exceptionally well just low you are prepared to set the bar for Starmer binners.
A tragic and totally avoidable fire, caused by criminal incompetence and neglect, kills 72 people, and you want to enthusiastically celebrate the fact that the government accepts the recommendations of an enquiry, and, wait for it........ wants to prosecute those companies responsible!!
Bleedin'ell is there no limit to this government's commitment to the rule of law?!? I'm starting to think that there might not be! It's crazy, I'm telling yer....... whatever else can we expect from this quite remarkable government?!?
Ernesto… really? Get a grip!
Do you think the previous government would be breaking the habit of a lifetime and fully implementing the recommendations of a public inquiry?
Or do you think they’d be doing what they always did and ignoring it completely so as to let there mates off the hook and keeping the gravy train rolling and prosecuting absolutely nobody?
Thats the point I was making
Nothing is currently stopping Labour 'tanking' in the polls.
"Secure at home - Strong Abroad."
What in the name in shit does that mean?
Sun told them a few days ago to cut WOKE foreign-aid to spend more on defence. Centrists definitely have more in common with the right than the left.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/33408783/labour-hike-defence-spending-foreign-aid/
And in other "other news", Keir Starmer castigates Nigel Farage for not turning up to parliament and presumably backing him over the alleged need to increase defence spending and cutting the foreign aid budget.
Asked if he is "Nigel Farage is disguise", given the Reform UK leader has previously vowed to increase defence spending but cut the foreign aid budget, Sir Keir said: "Nigel Farage didn't even turn up to the debate in parliament today. Nigel Farage is fawning over Putin. That's not patriotism.
To be fair Nigel Farage probably quite rightly thinks that patriotic Keir Starmer is doing an excellent job in implementing the Reform UK election manifesto policies and that with the huge majority he has Starmer really doesn't need any help from him.
A lot of selective blindness, if not willful ignorance in this thread, as per usual.
I mean if Starmers government is being criticised for doing the correct thing where previous governments have been at best indifferent to the grenfell/cladding issue, then there is. Just no Pleasing some people.
What would you have him do? Nothing? Or do what he seems to be doing?
so maybe we should leave the countries defence to you
The country's defence was fine as it was. We're in no more danger of Russian invasion today than we were before Jan 26th. Spending tens of billions more on defence is a decision designed only to curry favour with the new US president and placate a load of racist ex-labour voters. It also conveniently gives Starmer the opportunity to play at being an international statesman when everyone at home thinks he's a dishonest, disingenuous, dithering technocrat who's out of his depth.
A lot of selective blindness, if not willful ignorance in this thread, as per usual.
Somewhat ironic considering how badly you strawmanned what Ernie wrote.