Would you pay more tax to boost defence spending

All those countries spend on conventional forces only, if the UK took out its Trident spending, (a Nuclear deterrent doesn't seem to be much of a deterrent....) plus some creative accounting on including pensions.... how much do we really spend on defence as a %/GDP ?

Funding, each year, Hunts £10 billion cut in employee NI is a really block on increasing defence spending for the UK.

Maybe Reeves is just going to have to reverse this silly decision and put the whole lot into the defence budget?

@Papyrophile

"I agree @OneLemonDog NATO is going to be a real cost, especially as Greece, Spain, Portugal and Italy have already said they don't intend to spend 2.5% or think NATO is relevant to their security."

Actually Greece spends quite a lot already at 3.23%. Spain 1.5%, Portugal 1.5%, Italy 1.6%, Belgium 1.2% and neutral Ireland at 0.2%.

Interestingly I think the logic of Spain, Portugal and Italy is why spend more on NATO defences when they can freeload off the increased defence spending by France, Germany and the UK.

The exact same logic that European NATO countries did by freeloading off the higher US defence spending.

I’d pay more tax now. It isn’t particularly for the military. The additional spending on defence is going to happen and I’d prefer not to see even more cuts in other areas to cover that. The NHS is being protected and schools but other things like local government, transport and environment will suffer even more then was planned.

Oh and let's hope to God that people finally start paying attention to Farage's decades of shilling for Putin and 10 years of cozying up to Trump. Even if you like Reform's policies, it's time to accept that it's current leader has (likely as a dupe) been working to advance the agendas of our enemies.

Trump has been making it clear for at least a few years now. He told the President of the European Commission, during his first term, that if Europe was attacked the US would not come to Europe's aide. He and those in his wing of the Republican Party have also been actively championing Putin and smearing Ukraine for years. The events of the last 10 days should be a surprise to no-one.

It's why I couldn't get my head around some British people wanting him to win the last election. I can understand (even though I do not agree) people liking his domestic policies but it was abundantly clear that a Trump win meant risking the UK's safety.

It's scary. My whole life the US has been an ally. I possibly thought they'd gradually withdraw support but I didn't twig they'd be antagonistic the way they are being.

I think some people have the impression that the issue is isolated to Ukraine and it's sovereignty. It is not.

We have had around 80 years of a mostly peaceful Europe, and that means most people from recent generations think that peace is the norm and that war is consigned to the history books, or at least, there's no realistic threat of it.

One of the major reasons for that peace had been the existence of NATO and, paeticularly, US involvement. Russia has the second strongest military in the world and is a nuclear superpower...but Europe had the US as an ally, which deterred aggression.

That has all now changed.

It isn't just that the US are pulling support, they are becoming actively antagonistic towards Europe. They are advancing Putin's aims (while brazenly peddling his propaganda), extorting Ukraine, interfering in elections and threatening to invade or otherwise annex part of Denmark.

We've gone from being protected by one military superpower, against another, to AT BEST having one enemy and one who is ambivalent...or, at worst, both as being enemies.

A failure to invest in defence spending, at this juncture, is an invitation to a war (which may well have a nuclear dimension) that Europe will lose.

I agree @OneLemonDog NATO is going to be a real cost, especially as Greece, Spain, Portugal and Italy have already said they don't intend to spend 2.5% or think NATO is relevant to their security.

I think it would be extremely naive and dangerous not to increase defence spending, sadly. The whole of Europe, the UK included, is extremely vulnerable.

Absolutely .. on both your points but where does one start with Russia's actions in Ukraine?
The horrors they've inflicted are beyond evil, yet still some will defend their actions.

I am so pleased the UK and Europe have stood by Ukraine and not sided with that orange baboon and his lackeys.... i hope this carries on into actions too.

Trigger warning. SA

www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/women-and-girls/ukrainian-female-pows-tortured-and-paraded-naked-by-russian/

Absolutely not a pacifist. They always start out in a pacifying or reasonable manner but it's not sustainable for them and their true colours come out. Then they change username. The Ukraine threads have had many such a visitor and they can be spotted a mile off.

Don't forget the rape of Ukrainian female prisoners of war (including a 61 year old) and civilians of both sexes and all ages in occupied Ukraine @Alexandra2001 ...

Don't really know what you mean?

Are you saying you back Russia, the kidnapping of Ukrainian children, the unprovoked invasion...the destruction of energy plants during winter... You re all ok with this...

You initially sort of sounded like a pacifist on the face of it but now I'm not so sure.

You may not like it, but accept it 😜

Peace in Ukraine should be a priority. However I can guarantee Russia will go again and soon China will be going for Taiwan. This could all spiral out of control into a world war that we can't win if we aren't prepared. Britain in ww2 was the largest military power on the planet with france. There was no chance of little Germany winning a war but they almost did that's the thing. At the minute we have less than our enemies not more like in ww2.

Yes, we need to spend more on defense—ideally reaching 3% of GDP by next year if we want any hope of being prepared for a potential global conflict between 2030 and 2035.
The urgency comes from the long procurement timelines required to design and build high-quality vehicles, ships, and weapons. This process can take anywhere from 2 to 10 years. A simple way to accelerate readiness is to purchase more of what we already have, which could reduce procurement timelines to under six months for vehicle deliveries. Aircraft would take longer due to their complex production, while ships, whether we like it or not, will take the longest. Many ship production lines have been shut down for years, leaving us with no choice but to invest in the new ship classes entering service over the next five years.
However, having more equipment isn’t enough—we also need personnel to operate it. In terms of defense priorities, the RAF and Navy are our most critical assets, but to seize and hold territory, we need a significantly larger army.

To strengthen our land forces, I propose increasing the professional army to 100,000 troops. Additionally, I would implement a Territorial Army system, with a selective draft designed to minimize economic disruption. Draftees would undergo one month of paid basic training before returning to their civilian jobs, followed by weekly training sessions to maintain and enhance their military skills. By training 10,000 personnel per month, we could build a reserve force of over 200,000 soldiers within five years while only actively paying for the 10,000 in training at any given time In peace time. This approach provides a high return on investment, ensuring a well-trained force at a fraction of the cost. (Obviously if war kicks off these extra soldiers would all be paid the propper rate)

Finally, to fully realize this plan, we must invest in additional equipment. If implemented, this strategy would make our military a formidable and respected force in the eyes of both allies and adversaries.

I appreciate these kind of specifics. I felt happy with Finland joining NATO, because if anyone can pass on their training, as you describe what is needed here in the UK, they'll probably be best for providing us with that.

Ha that referendum was after annexation.... so poll conducted by Russia, counted by Russia and influenced by Russia...

Your use of the phrase "former Ukrainian regions" is very telling.

@seebiscuit1

"Peace is better than war."

Whilst most people would agree with this simplistic statement, what you are missing out is "peace on what terms".

A peace agreement enforced against a nation and the wishes of its citizens down the barrel of a gun is very much what happened to Germany in 1918 and the desire of an aggrieved and humiliated German citizens wanting to restore their dignity is what led to the rise of Hitler and WW2.

Zelensky and the Ukrainian people want a peaceful end to this war just like everyone else- what they don't want is a capitulation as that will just set up another war.

The best thing for Ukraine is to negotiate from a position of strength, so at least they can say no to whatever is presented to them by Putin / Trump and now that the US has backed away from military support, then their only hope for Ukraine is for Europe to take up the military aid shortfall and quickly.

Precisely.

You're welcome

Oh mate I've got a bridge for you to buy.

The population of Crimea voted overwhelmingly to become part of Russia.
So too did the other former Ukrainian regions.
Peace is better than war.

As 60 percent is on welfare who would be paying? Can we trim the benefits list of recipients?