Is there a thread about Starmer's announcement...

[Westfacing]

... to increase defence spending and reduce overseas aid?

China’s belt and road programme is absolutely not development aid. It is money given to improve infrastructure in the form of loans or tied to deals on those natural
resources. Countries like Zambia have literally sold their future to China. Yes they have much improved infrastructure and achieved some economic growth but they are now essentially owned by China. They can never repay the debt; they have sold their natural resources which you can only do once.

The ideology of “soft power” and influence is dead. Africa has proven that because whilst it was accepting billions in aid from America, Europe etc with little strings attached, it was also selling itself to the Chinese. When push comes to shove who will they support? The powers that have given them some money or the one that actually holds their title deeds!

I think it may well be the first sensible policy Starmer's announced. We - meaning both the UK and the whole of Europe - need to be protecting ourselves. This was true eight years ago, and it's even truer now. It's absurd that we expect the US to spend their taxpayers' money on defending us from our next door neighbours, whilst we spend ours funding other nation's space programs!

And to be frank, I'm not sure many of us are noticing any of the 'influence' and 'soft power' it's supposed to be granting us; the entire world despises us even though we're giving them money - does it much matter if they despise us a bit more when stop funding them?

So have the RAF and the Navy.

Have you got the numbers to back up that claim?

How much do we gain from those relationships? Which ones bring a good return on investment, and which don't?

I think the UK has post-colonial delusions.

A colonial power has a 'patron' type responsibility to the colony. Developing infrastructure, manufacturing capability - and also developing good governance - is paid for out of the money they make from the colony. The reward is high enough that it doesn't need to be fully accounted.

The UK and other European ex-colonial powers still consider themselves to have a responsibility to the whole world, it seems - but now that it's not a colonial system, they're not getting the rewards back to fund that.

In the post-colonial, transactional world, we need to be a bit more careful about what money we're giving and what we get in return.

I mean it's pretty good to come up with a policy that Kemi, Ed, and Nigel all support to be honest. Literally everyone in agreement, doesn't happen very often.

I don't normally agree with cutting aid but I think this situation is different.

However I do think that the UK and EU should be pressuring Italy and Spain to meet their 2%.

Interestingly the graph that the BBC published showed that the US's spending has decreased since 2014, whereas everyone else's has increased, even Italy and Spain's. There are several countries putting more of their GDP in than the US, Poland's is nearly double.

What we're getting in return is not having to go to war ourselves, and a weakened Russian enemy state, HTH.

@Cherriescherry absolutely criminal isn't it. Not to mention the fact that we are also billions in debt.

Still am shocked I'm in agreement with sneary starmer though

They should scrap the Chagos deal that'll be taking up funds

@JasmineAllen absolutely if you can afford a space program you don't need 'aid'. These two countries in particular are corrupt beyond measure and none of the aid will be going to good causes.

How does giving $0.6 billion a year to various African countries do that, exactly?

And are we going to get our $12.8 Billion back from Ukraine in rare metals, like Trump has negotiated?

100% complete shambles

It's time to fundamentally review our defence strategy, We have replied on mutually assured destruction for too long. It only works if it is mutually assured and without the US it isn't When you have a dictator like Putin who see casualty numbers are as just one of those things that happens our handful of nuclear missiles won't do a lot. He however, can destroy us completely. We either need to increase the number of missiles to rebalance the risk/reward or we might as well get rid of them and spend the money on missile defences.

Hopefully not. It is the equivalent of a man helping a young women fight off someone with a knife, only to then rape her as his reward.

No, it's not. I'm not suggesting we should control Ukraine, which would be the equivalent of your example.

It's the equivalent of a man missing his train to fight off the assailant, then the young woman buying him a replacement train ticket.

Trident is absolutely critical to our defence.

Thank goodness Corbyn didn't get in and decommission them as he wanted.

This is right and thank god someone else understands

@strawberrybubblegum I'd forgotten that. Unbelievable. We'd be severely weakened by that.

There's no extra money. The money has been taken from foreign aid and given to defence. Same total spend, just a change in how it is divvied up.

Don't we have 8 missiles at any point in time. Enough to take out what half of Moscow, assuming that the submarine captain does follow the instruction, they actually work (didn't the last few tests plop in the sea near the sub) and that the missiles aren't destroyed in flight. Putin has 2,000 plus and a much smaller area to destroy. It is like taking a water gun to a gun flight. Without the US the only side assured of destruction is us. NATO is critical to our defence not Trident, Trident just helped us stay at the table with the US. As I said we either need to increase the number of missiles to make it more impactful or we are pissing in the wind so to speak.

The shortsightedness of some of the comments in this thread ... spending money helping other countries is soft power and influence.

If you help someone, when your time of need comes around they'll help you. Right now China is romping through Africa amassing influence and power, at a rate that frightens me. British voters just don't have clue what this means longer term and how vulnerable it makes us as a country. China is benefitting from influence and access to resources etc (I see it in RL) - not that I think China gives much back ...

Having said that, I do think defence needs increasing. Trump has made the world a lot less safe and we can't rely on the USA anymore, especially now it's bedfellows with Putin. Just imagine we were the Ukraine? I just wish the increase could be funded by tax rises.

‘Soft power’ isn’t enough anymore. With the USA turning into a basket case and Putin in the vicinity we need our own, independent, hard power. Got to put on your own oxygen mask before assisting others.

Really hope they manage to find a way to seize those frozen Russian assets.

If you help someone, when your time of need comes around they'll help you

You think Africa will help us in our time of need out of recognition for our previous generosity? Really?

I disagree. Taking control of someones resources is taking control of them. The Ukraine mineral rights will are to be signed over the USA. Trump will decide who extracts (presumably American companies), how much and where they go (to the US).

You think Africa will help us in our time of need out of recognition for our previous generosity? Really?

As poor as they are, African nations have votes at the UN (for eg) and they influence the other nations around them on SADC, for example. If they're in alliance with the UK, that benefits the UK. I've been involved in African politics for donkeys years and there was a time when Britain did have influence, despite its colonial past. Not any more. Africa is 'looking east'. A trip through Addis Ababa airport will blow your mind.

I feel similar about the net support we pay to Wales.