AIBU to point out that the most important duty of the UK government is to maintain the defence of the country?

For the UK, there are three broad options for financing a sustained increase in defence spending:

Increasing borrowing, potentially involving some relaxation of the fiscal rules. (It is worth noting that capital spending is already excluded from the government’s binding stability rule, so the investment component of higher defence spending would sit outside that constraint.)

Increase taxes, whether through explicit rate rises or base broadening.

Lower spending elsewhere, via reprioritisation within existing budgets, which analysts warn could put immense pressure on public services like health and education.

Which of these do you, in your infinite wisdom, (rather than just your normal stabce of negativity) think we should do?

The electorate feels differently though. Noone running on tax increases to fund defense would win.

It's really not a Labour thing. Defense spending has been getting cut for years.

Posts solely blaming the Conservatives aren’t considering how things have changed drastically in terms of our safety. Yes the Conservatives should have prioritised our safety but currently Labour is in charge.

The resignation letter from the defence minister names Keir directly, for the dire situation we are in. It’s completely unacceptable.

Don't worry Air Chief Marshall, a few MNers have got it covered. No need to panic🙄

YANBU OP - if there is only room for a single item in the budget, it should be defence. Especially now in a) globally uncertain times and b) with the increase in terror attacks, riots etc at home.

I find it a bit strange tbh that it's only single-digit %ages of the budget!

Yanbu but Starmer and Labour are imploding.

The UK holds the fifth position globally in the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) rankings for defence expenditure. It sits just behind Germany, while retaining its status as the second-largest spender in NATO after the United States.

I really wouldn't be digging a bigger hole for yourself. Does it not tell you anything about Healey's resignation?

A drop in the ocean is what Starmer and Reeves are proposing. No wonder John's done a runner.

You're making it sound if the armed forces have been left penniless and completely defenceless. They're still working and doing their jobs. These things take time

As for my knowledge of warfare what makes you such an expert exactly. Or your knowledge of how government reviews and procurement work.

Yes a very revealing resignation letter which should give cause for concern. For one of Starmer's remaining loyal ministers this speaks volumes. I don't blame him for jumping ship. He's too old to be fighting losing battles.

My 11 year old understands this concept. Does their martial arts training in case they need it in future. Too late to try to learn after the bullying starts.

Rubbish.

I remember my DH being sent home from a night shift because planes were grounded, that night, never to be flown again. That was by David Cameron. I, also, remember him being on the redundancy list 3 times, but fortunately missing out, while men and women he’d served with for year were sent packing. Then they couldn’t recruit anyone, and those already serving were leaving in their droves.

I’m, also, old enough to remember DS1 joining up over a decade ago and his regiment being promised new vehicles imminently. They only recently got them and they don’t fecking work.

The Tories destroyed our armed forces, like they destroyed almost everything else. It’s going to take years and years and more money than anyone could imagine to even begin to fix it.

It’s complicated isn’t it? Not a simple thing.
What is the definition of defence? Because I’m not wholly sure I can think of a good example of it since WW2.

Should we have an armed force to protect ourselves? Probably. But what counts as a defensive act?

Was - for instance - the last Iraq war or Trump’s current Iran war (which while not directly involved in we are certainly not wholly out of) defence? Or did those actually make us more vulnerable? Was anything that happened during the cold war and all those ‘hot wars’ that came from that (Korea/ Vietnam, etc) make us safer, be justified as defence?

What did the so called ‘War on Terror’ do except make us the target of attack?

Have nuclear weapons created a stalemate and stopped the potential for another world war or have they taken us to the brink and mean that any future world war (or even minor nuclear war) will end in total decimation?

Are countries that have a less aggressive view of defence (Switzerland for instance) less safe than the UK?

Looking back across centuries of history and particularly across the last 120 odd years I certainly think increasing one’s defence spending seems only to lead to increased vulnerability to being attacked and at war.

And what exactly are we defending? Our people? The outcome of wars across the centuries would suggest not. The power and wealth and ideals of those with the most? Arguably that’s exactly what wars protect and increase.

You don't really know how warfare works do you? No imminent danger 😆 🤣 we aren't going to get nuked overnight but there has to be a momentum of weaponry availability and adequate deployment, way in advance of a real threat.

The problem, as John Healey says in his resignation letter, is that Starmer has been making promises on defence spending that he is too weak to implement.

It’s not pathetic, it’s pointless just pointing the finger at the current incumbent (who hasn’t been in power for long). The reason the MOD is in a mess is because of systematic failures over a decade, they also didn’t fix the other big pressing economic issues so to expect Labour to be able to pull a rabbit out the hat within a couple of years is entirely unrealistic.

Oh, you again.

Are we in imminent danger of being invaded. What do think that has changed so much that the defence of the realm is in such a perilous state.

I really must get my pearls restrung. All this clutching just isn't good for them.

True, but to fix them we need to be heading in the right direction!

I disagree, if Labour had had the guts to propose real changes to the way in which we are governed and how we are taxed (such as like abolish NI and increase IT, ensuring everyone pays tax equally on their income as potential option) then I’m confident many people would have got behind that, and their “landslide” securing 34% of the vote wouldn’t have been as shallow as it was.

Few people voted “for” Labour. They voted “against” the Tories, and he could have been far bolder before the election, and likely benefited from it from an electorate desperate for real changes. But he, Reeves, and others were cowards.

Yeah because we have all the time in the world to wait. Its only the country's defence at stake. We are dealing with the here and now. Without defending the country's realm anything else is null and void.

Let's hope Burnham will make a better job of standing up to his back benchers.

Burnham is a shapeshifting creep who'll promise anything to the audience in front of him without the slightest idea how to deliver it (or pay for it). He's had to row back again this morning, this time on compensating WASPI women.

I voted Labour (and regret it) but by continuing to blame the Tories, you make it even more likely that you will lose the next election in a landslide. It’s like you’re self-harming and want the destruction of your party - madness.

The threads already starting to remind me of Starmer's repetitive "I won't be taking lessons from the Tories" line when he's cornered. A very weak man, not leadership material and a bullshitter about his priority of this country's people. Sooner he goes the better. Let's hope Burnham will make a better job of standing up to his back benchers. Oh wait, peas in a pod so redundant point. We are fucked.