Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

Increasing defence spending: have we lost our “societal understanding of war”.

125 replies

rickyrickygrimes · 23/02/2025 12:19

General Sir Patrick Sanders (former head of the British Armed Forces) said he believed there was no “societal understanding of war” in the UK and that this is a big problem looking at the rapidly changing geopolitical situation - not least the likely withdrawal of the US from NATO and the ongoing war in Europe.

What do you think? I'm 52 now, born and raised in Scotland though have lived elsewhere (in Europe) for 20 years now. I have no personal, direct experience of war. My parents don't either, they are in their mid 70s. My grandparents obviously lived through it, but both my grandfathers were in reserved occupations so did not fight. One of my grans was a nurse in London during WW2 which definitely marked her for life, she had some horrific stories.

We (my family) are very fortunate, I guess, to have never been forced to think about war. But also, we never really talked about defence as if it was an important thing to do, to support, to commit to - and the sacrifice that it entails. We've been able to be quite dismissive about war and defence. My family are all quite lefty-liberal - ideas like patriotism, joining the Army, blindly following orders, being willing to kill other human beings etc are not something I've been brought up to value.

But it looks like war or conflict is coming, and that we in the UK / Europe are woefully unprepared in every way. If we are to increase spending on defence to 2 or 3 or more % of GDP, that's going to have an impact on health, education, welfare spending - and the public will only accept this if they believe that defence is more important than these other things.

Where do you stand? Do you support increased defence spending? How do you view the armed forces and the 'importance' of being able to defend the UK and its allies? Does your family or your social circle have any 'societal understanding of war'?

OP posts:
trainermush · 23/02/2025 15:43

No it isn’t. Our population is ageing, but non-age related benefits are frankly at scary levels.

Not this again. Age related benefits are scary & dwarf everything!!

trainermush · 23/02/2025 15:44

As for pp and dc interest in army, that's a better angle, if people want to good for them. Otherwise people shouldn't assume the young would be willing to fight / die for them

Agree @EasternStandard

Wildflowers99 · 23/02/2025 15:45

trainermush · 23/02/2025 15:43

No it isn’t. Our population is ageing, but non-age related benefits are frankly at scary levels.

Not this again. Age related benefits are scary & dwarf everything!!

Pensions are now only 55% of the welfare bill. They don’t ‘dwarf’ the rest.

username299 · 23/02/2025 15:46

Get rid off the Royal Family rather than get rid off the NHS. It's been estimated that they cost half a billion a year. We could open their palaces to the public, that will make a lot of money.

trainermush · 23/02/2025 15:46

But realistically the army won't want to spend money on training me (a middle age woman with breaky bones and bad eyesight) to drive a tank or do hand to hand combat with Russians.

It's very crude but isn't this what is needed when we are talking about cannon fodder plus saves on future NHS bills? My young dc are probably fair better at flying a drone remotely than me due to Mario etc 😆

Livelovebehappy · 23/02/2025 15:48

Well health,education and welfare are going to be pretty irrelevant if we can’t defend our country. I would happily have money diverted into the getting a more robust defence process in place. Without being able to adequately defend our country under threat of war is more important, because without it, we are screwed.

trainermush · 23/02/2025 15:48

Pensions are now only 55% of the welfare bill. They don’t ‘dwarf’ the rest.

@Wildflowers99 I never said pensions dwarfed the rest? I'm talking about all costs related to an aging population. The cost to the NHS alone is big.

biscuitandcake · 23/02/2025 15:49

trainermush · 23/02/2025 15:46

But realistically the army won't want to spend money on training me (a middle age woman with breaky bones and bad eyesight) to drive a tank or do hand to hand combat with Russians.

It's very crude but isn't this what is needed when we are talking about cannon fodder plus saves on future NHS bills? My young dc are probably fair better at flying a drone remotely than me due to Mario etc 😆

Working Mothers Day GIF by Libby VanderPloeg

Mumsnet army. The Uks secret weapon.

Wildflowers99 · 23/02/2025 15:49

trainermush · 23/02/2025 15:48

Pensions are now only 55% of the welfare bill. They don’t ‘dwarf’ the rest.

@Wildflowers99 I never said pensions dwarfed the rest? I'm talking about all costs related to an aging population. The cost to the NHS alone is big.

Oh the NHS yes absolutely, I agree. Sorry I thought you just meant pensions.

trainermush · 23/02/2025 15:50

I'm game! They may underestimate us!

Livelovebehappy · 23/02/2025 15:50

username299 · 23/02/2025 15:46

Get rid off the Royal Family rather than get rid off the NHS. It's been estimated that they cost half a billion a year. We could open their palaces to the public, that will make a lot of money.

But they bring more revenue into the UK than what it costs us to fund them. And what happens then? They’d need to be replaced by a presidential type ruler, which would probably still cost us millions, but wouldn’t bring in any income.

ByMerryKoala · 23/02/2025 15:50

Apparently we'd need to fork out another £80bn/year to get our army to 5% gdp - the increasingly used threshold level for a 'decent army'.

That would require a proper rejig of social security spending.

trainermush · 23/02/2025 15:51

Oh the NHS yes absolutely, I agree. Sorry I thought you just meant pensions.

Thanks you. An extra million on sick benefits obviously isn't great but it's not the reason the economy is up the shitter.

Wildflowers99 · 23/02/2025 15:51

username299 · 23/02/2025 15:46

Get rid off the Royal Family rather than get rid off the NHS. It's been estimated that they cost half a billion a year. We could open their palaces to the public, that will make a lot of money.

Whereas the NHS is 300 billion a year so getting rid of the royals would be pissing into the wind

Wildflowers99 · 23/02/2025 15:52

trainermush · 23/02/2025 15:51

Oh the NHS yes absolutely, I agree. Sorry I thought you just meant pensions.

Thanks you. An extra million on sick benefits obviously isn't great but it's not the reason the economy is up the shitter.

See it would say it is. As well as the benefits it’s the dual burden of the fact they’re not working and paying income tax. Our spending on benefits is massive and it cannot continue.

EasternStandard · 23/02/2025 15:54

trainermush · 23/02/2025 15:46

But realistically the army won't want to spend money on training me (a middle age woman with breaky bones and bad eyesight) to drive a tank or do hand to hand combat with Russians.

It's very crude but isn't this what is needed when we are talking about cannon fodder plus saves on future NHS bills? My young dc are probably fair better at flying a drone remotely than me due to Mario etc 😆

@trainermush I'm with you. Get everyone who's keen for anyone to do it on the job.

On another note I agree tg for the nuclear deterrent. Info on who has it in Europe this morning surprised me

trainermush · 23/02/2025 15:57

Our spending on benefits is massive and it cannot continue.

But you can't talk about benefits without acknowledging an ageing population? Current forecasts say spending on pensions will increase by 32 bn per yr by 2050. And health and social care costs are forecast to rise to 105bn a year. How do you stop that continuing? I mean we could remove the triple lock but will that go down well?

trainermush · 23/02/2025 15:57

On another note I agree tg for the nuclear deterrent. Info on who has it in Europe this morning surprised me

I missed that @EasternStandard, do you have a link?

WinterMorn · 23/02/2025 16:04

Livelovebehappy · 23/02/2025 15:48

Well health,education and welfare are going to be pretty irrelevant if we can’t defend our country. I would happily have money diverted into the getting a more robust defence process in place. Without being able to adequately defend our country under threat of war is more important, because without it, we are screwed.

This with bells on

biscuitandcake · 23/02/2025 16:05

I think its fine to debate whether the benefit system etc is sustainable. Or even to discuss whether the NHS should be privatised (I think that would be a huge mistake personally). But using the threat of war/the need to increase defence spending as an excuse to cut spending on the NHS/welfare is really wrongheaded. If you expect anyone to fight for their country, they deserve a country to go back to.

There are a ton of American memes etc showing of massive aircraft carriers etc saying "this is why we don't have universal health care". Spoiler: it really really isn't.

UnderHisEeyore · 23/02/2025 16:06

The only reason we are having to think about war is because of greed. Really it isn't surprising we thought we would be smarter than this post two WW's.

No one seems to want this other than Russia.

EasternStandard · 23/02/2025 16:07

biscuitandcake · 23/02/2025 16:05

I think its fine to debate whether the benefit system etc is sustainable. Or even to discuss whether the NHS should be privatised (I think that would be a huge mistake personally). But using the threat of war/the need to increase defence spending as an excuse to cut spending on the NHS/welfare is really wrongheaded. If you expect anyone to fight for their country, they deserve a country to go back to.

There are a ton of American memes etc showing of massive aircraft carriers etc saying "this is why we don't have universal health care". Spoiler: it really really isn't.

@biscuitandcake I just think it's a political hole rather than an absolute rule on how to do it

For example Germany this morning were talking about increasing debt to increase defence spending. They have more room to do this than us.

username299 · 23/02/2025 16:07

Livelovebehappy · 23/02/2025 15:50

But they bring more revenue into the UK than what it costs us to fund them. And what happens then? They’d need to be replaced by a presidential type ruler, which would probably still cost us millions, but wouldn’t bring in any income.

Millions are made from tourists visiting the royal palaces. That wouldn't stop and if Buckingham Palace was opened, it would make more. Millions are also made from souvenirs and that wouldn't stop either.

The Irish head of state costs around 5m a year.

trainermush · 23/02/2025 16:07

Or even to discuss whether the NHS should be privatised (I think that would be a huge mistake personally). But using the threat of war/the need to increase defence spending as an excuse to cut spending on the NHS/welfare is really wrongheaded

I agree and had said before I would rather tax increases but the gov seems to be going down this route.

EasternStandard · 23/02/2025 16:08

trainermush · 23/02/2025 15:57

On another note I agree tg for the nuclear deterrent. Info on who has it in Europe this morning surprised me

I missed that @EasternStandard, do you have a link?

On the radio, only U.K. and France do in Europe. I hadn't really thought about it but now I do we seem lucky and also quite rare

Swipe left for the next trending thread