Defence Secretary John Healey resigns and calls out Rachel Reeves

[Fillies4DeclanRice]

John Healey has become the latest government minister to resign, basically saying he cannot do the job of keeping the UK safe because Labour's economic model is in such a mess.

His resignation letter effectively says the government needs to spend far less on welfare benefits and net zero, and start taxing less and spending more on defence.

This is total chaos now.

Same with restrictions on Carers Allowance.

For Carer’s Allowance, you must earn no more than £204 per week (after deductions like tax, National Insurance, and half of your pension contributions). If you earn £204.01 or more, you lose the entirety of the allowance.

How much does a benefit recipient get per week for doing fuck all? This country needs some serious change!

Granted there’s some genuine people on benefits. But there’s a lot of people who are on the scrounge.

Soft touch Britain doesn’t need to prepare for war. Anything to get the votes eh Starmer!

And then it’s all taken away when you reach old age to pay care home fees. Meanwhile the person in the bedroom next to you who didn’t work a day in their life and relied on benefits gets their old age care fees paid for free.

Sorry yes I meant that. the limit to get this is pretty high at around £50k so my point is where are the questions on whether someone on 50k needs this benefit? The PP specifically referred to assessing who Needs it. Probably thinking that if pensioners can what, afford meals out and holidays for whatever, they don’t need a state top up. But you might just as well question whether, if said 50k earner can also already afford holidays and maybe meals out, they don’t need it either. I’m not saying i think child benefit should be changed by the way, just making the point that pensioners always seem to be a particular focus. And so many seem to think they know what older people need.

We really don't want to encourage people not to save for their retirement, or to withdraw and spunk the funds the did save as quickly as possible. This would be an absolute disaster.

It's pretty difficult to distinguish between income and savings as a pensioner.

How is it difficult? Pensioners should not be punished for having savings which they may need for large expenses, moving,new car,new roof, dental treatments etc, and they should not be expected to use savings for costs of ever day living.

Defence spending has been progressively reduced since Suez. Almost all of the cuts under Conservative governments incidentally.

I agree with those who want Rachel Reeves to be replaced, bad decisions on how to control spending and raise income, even though I agree there was an inherited funding gap.

Because most future pensioners' (except public sector workers) income comes from DC pensions. There is no 'income' from a DC pension, you can draw the lot in year one and have nothing left if you want. Spend it, give it away etc. and you'll be eligible for a SP & benefits instead. Great.

I thought this was about an existential threat to the country? Regardless of whether or not people have paid in, surely if it is that important most people in pensions who can afford it would be willing to lose a bit? The problem is...

• If you tax income people will apparently be disincentived from working
• if you tax capital gains people will apparently leave the country rather than pay extra

-If you reduce pensioner benefits people will be disincentivised from paying for retirement.

So the only solution is to go after all welfare spending that ISNT pensions. Very often with descriptions of lazy young people not wanting to work.

But it's taken for granted that young people would, in an invasion, volunteer to fight in sufficient numbers. Despite the fact it's assumed the first three gpups listed wouldnt be prepared to do much less. And the same people refusing to pay more tax are the same people who wax lyrical about patriotism a lot of the time.

I thought this was about keeping the country safe not punishing people though?

They should not have to make that choice.
Take a look at the published list of people who refuse to pay what they should do, the defaulters in tax. The figures are appalling. This is all money that the Treasury expects to get but doesn’t. They should go after each and every one of the defaulters. All the time.

There are companies that do not pay enough tax in the first place let alone default on it.

There are many other solutions or contributions to solutions that could be made.

I agree. Bring back National Service
The young need to learn discipline and respect.
Recently, I witnessed something that made me sick to my stomach. Down the side road of a town, there was a bird on its back lying in a pool of blood and looked terrified. A gang of yobs walked over to it and were laughing and taking photos. It soon became clear that the poor bird was a victim of catapult crime. I reported this to the police and was told that it’s happening a lot, it’s how kids / young people get their kicks. Swans, geese, ducks, pigeons and other wildlife being brutally attacked for ‘kicks’. It’s sickening. It’s an awful world that we live in now. How did we ever come to this?

'the government needs to spend far less on welfare benefits and net zero'

YES. Labour really are a bunch of incompetent imbeciles. They haven't covered their wonderful highly publicised in touch with the electorate grown ups in the room state educated selves in glory have they. I wonder when SKS has gone (shortly), and Burnham starts as PM (in a while), if this will make AB think twice about his leftie bs.. Come next labour PM - cut the bulging benefits, start Rwanda again, and stop net zero spending, nothing to lose.

Yes I agree too. Rishi did float the idea I think. But was shot down (figuratively ofc, we don't have a military).

That is horrific, but pointless cruelty to animals is sadly nothing new. But it’s actually become less socially acceptable than it used to be (at least in the UK) and potential prison terms are much longer.

Oh I see - did those catapulting little pricks get a prison sentence?

The problem with national service is that a) the military don't want it, b) majority of young people don't want it c) how do you motivate young people that don't want to be there and d) where's the money going to come from?

A better solution in my mind would be to offer say a limited number of places in the military for a paid service term of say two years (one year training and one year doing stuff). At the end of this the Government will pay for either all your university tuition fees for the three years or a properly paid internship with reputable companies for three years.

It would be entirely voluntary and starting with say only 10,000 places there would be strong competition to get such a place, so that only those that really want to do it will get a place.

The military could manage the training of an additional 10k per year and in the second year free up existing military people to do the training for the next 10k and so on.

As for how to pay for it on the university fees then this could be covered either the universities themselves or a small surcharge on the fees of those students paying for them. On internships it would be a combination of the companies themselves and exemptions on apprenticeship requirements.

He certainly has my respect for what he's done. I'm an American military veteran, so while I don't have a direct interest in the state of the British military, I'm sure people serving in it appreciate it.

Low defense readiness and capability gaps put the lives of soldiers, sailors, and airmen at great risk if they are called upon to fight. It's one thing to ask people to defend the nation and quite another to ask them to do so with inadequate kit and low ammunition supplies.

And British forces have shrunk to the point where they are of marginal usefulness. When I served in the early 1990s, the BA had 152,000 active duty members. It's now down to 72,000. And only 20-25% of those are front-line war fighters. It's more of a peacekeeping force than an army now.

Well I’m not saying I’d agree either but fairly obviously the focus would be on the thing that isn’t at all means tested vs the thing that is means tested, albeit at a relatively high level.
You could argue that if £80k (the point at which you lose all child benefit) is enough to raise a child on, then it’s enough for a pensioner, for example.

It is all a mess. But yes I agree. My neighbour was saying she is struggling to recruit to her cleaning and catering jobs. People have come drunk to interviews, not showed up at all and one was honest and said he warned more on benefits than he would by working....

That's not the reaction from the loudest voices - but the majority know it's not sustainable in its current form.

My DD works for the NHS in a kitchen in a secure mental hospital. They have great difficulty recruiting people, but she seems to like it well enough. There are jobs out there, and not all care ones either.

@1dayatatime

A better solution in my mind would be to offer say a limited number of places in the military for a paid service term of say two years (one year training and one year doing stuff). At the end of this the Government will pay for either all your university tuition fees for the three years or a properly paid internship with reputable companies for three years.

This is quite similar to the American ROTC (Reserve Officer Training Program).

https://www.goarmy.com/careers-and-jobs/find-your-path/army-officers/rotc

If you're selected, you get military training in parallel with your university coursework, and upon graduation, the army takes you in as an active duty or reserve Second Lieutenant. Either way, your tuition and fees have been paid. This is how I was commissioned.

And when you get out, you're eligible for benefits under the GI Bill . They'll pay for a postgraduate degree or university tuition for your children, along with other benefits like low-interest mortgages.

If the UK wants more young people to serve, it needs to make it a more attractive career option.

Looking at the macros it seems clear to me Starmers government was talking the talk but not walking the walk on military spending.

This guy appears to have stood up and said that he isn't having that.

Something to be commended. I am glad at least someone isn't willing to just stand by and let it happen.

Of course it is difficult for the leadership to find the money when everyone wants a handout. But that is often what leadership is about - making tough choices for the right reasons and sticking by them, rather than causing yourself the minimum hassle possible and hoping you can limp through the next election by minimising the outrage.

You’re asking the wrong person, however given the cuts to the Ministry of Justice that I mentioned earlier, if they’re tried at all it might not be for years! I forgot to mention too that the Police also had to scale back their work due to austerity, so they have no choice but to let many offenders get away with it.

Sadly, it would take a long time and a huge amount of money to undo the damage that the last government did to our public services.

Im glad Healy has stuck to his principles and I agree that defence of the country is paramount. But it is interesting that he hasn’t waited until after Makerfield . I cant help thinking that this will spook some would be Labour voters and Reform will just love the opportunity to scaremonger even more than they do already