Trump throwing a lot of people under the bus because of stock markets?

[mids2019]

When you start a war you finish it in my opinion. There has been no other war that has been stopped because of a slide on the Dow Jones or an oil price spike. For Trump to now prematurely call an end to the war simply because of economics will simply mean IIrans drone terrorism has worked.

The people of Iran will be left with a job half done without the space needed for an uprising.

A new leader with good reason to ideological hate Israel and the US will realise the only method of future deterrence of Iran is through acquiring a nuclear weapon as their conventional weapons were obliterated. Iran will now do everything possible to acquire such a weapon.

This is a time for resolve Mr. President. There is still a chance to destroy this regime maybe with limited target ground troop assaults. The world actually will be safer if you continue.

Might be worth a read;

https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/starmer-shows-his-hand-defence-spending

Yep. But we haven’t cared about funding it for a while either and looking at voting intention it’s a bit stressful on whether we will.

The problem rn is lack of funds to do much about it as the promised growth hasn’t happened.

You're right - I had missed that in 2025 Labour committed to spending 2.5% on core defence by April 2027 - an increase from the current 2.1%. Excuse me for not finding an increase of 0.4% that memorable.

While I acknowledge that it is a small increase, it is still only half the 5% of GDP the UK used to spend on defence if we go back to 1985 as per your previous post today at 6.40am.

The longer term aim of 3% was only suggested by Starmer a month ago, as a result of the war in Iran - and it's only an "ambition" to increase spending to 3% in the next parliament.

As he told other world leaders at the Munich Security Conference, "To meet the wider threat, it's clear that we are going to have to spend more, faster".

The BBC has been told the prime minister's aides are now looking at proposals to meet that 3% ambition by the end of the current parliament, which could last until 2029.

No decision has been taken and the Treasury is said to be cautious.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpqwl10lvr2o

Lol You don't give up do you? Defend the Tories to the bitter end... if our military ever find themselves in conflict again, i hope they show even half your fighting spirit!

It's a 19% increase in spend.... and 3 years earlier than planned.

Of course spend was 5% in 1985... during the Cold War..

My point is by 2014, the UK should have been increasing spend, do you agree?

Not hindsight, we knew by then Russia was no longer interested in peace.

It’s slow because funding is not growing as expected or pledged.

I'm someone that agrees with the need to pay high taxes to get good services. So does my whole family and as a family we pay a lot in taxes and don't begrudge it.

There is a bigger issue though than willingness to pay more in taxes, which is priorities. As I said earlier on this thread, I am someone guilty in the past of not prioritising wanting the government to spend more on defence as there always seems to be higher priorities, like better funding for the NHS & social care.

However, the Iran war has reminded many of us (including me) that serious money does need to be spent on defence, even if it comes at the price of slashing budgets in other areas.

@Alexandra2001 I intended no "spirited defence of the Tories" I was just agreeing with a previous poster than underspending on defence has been an issue with both Tory and Labour governments for many years, and now we see the result. There is an argument to be made that whoever forms the next government should increase funding significantly, and not just to the proposed 3% but back to the original 5% of GDP.

Yes I agree that by 2014 the UK should have been increasing spend.

The tone of your posts to me are always so nasty, I don't see the need?

I note you don't attack the other poster who I was agreeing with.

Labour have tried more in taxes and it doesn’t help much as growth stalled to 0% in January.

Nasty? not all all, healthy debate from me....... i do admire your stubbornness, seriously.

Getting to 5% is probably not possible, we don't have the people wanting to join up, not the skills to build and manufacture equipment and munitions, we no longer have the naval dockyards (much sold for housing) or used to store decommissioned subs, workforces slashed.

Airbases closed down, Army camps closed... turned into industrial estates or built over for housing, with plans for the some, to house migrants....

BTW i'd be just as critical of Labour if Blair had cut defence spend but he didn't, prob due to Iraq and Afghan.

On UK GDP growth, cut due to Brexit, terrible under the Tories and little better under Labour but at least we've avoided a recession (Sunak 2023)

I was asking about the increase in defence spending.

This war is going to cost the UK a lot.

The biggest brake on the economy over the last decade has been Brexit.

Brexit and austerity.

It is going to take a long time to recover from that

Despite Reeves claims they’re in a good place to deal with it they’re not.

Borrowing is already very high, growth 0 and whatever pledge they put before the GE to get the opposite hasn’t happened.

It’ll have to come from other stuff if they want to actually spend on defence. As for people feeling those cuts they should have chosen better policies than their anti growth ones.

You want them to re-arrange the deckchairs rather than invest properly?

That’s your line not mine so no.

Yes. I rather think the former might not have happened without the latter.

8% off GDP - the impact accruing over time.
Inventment down 12-18%.

It is my line based on what you said.

I have read enough of your posts to know that you won't give this government any time but if you are serious about wanting to increase defence spending than the money to invest must come from somewhere and not just from removing it from other departments.

For the Tories that oversaw the biggest cuts in Defence ever, wanting more spent on defence now, seems rather insincere.

Just something else to attack Labour with, they had 14 years to increase defence spend and grow the economy....

Growth was awful under Bojo and then Sunak, with Truss trashing borrowing costs, that and Brexit both self inflicted

You already know the impact of higher taxes from the last 20 months, it stops growth. Despite the ‘enough of your posts’ nonsense the economics around that doesn’t change when you hit people with more taxes.

The UK is facing the biggest hit to growth from the Iran war out of the G20 major economies.

You initially cheered Trump but will blame Reeves.

Reeves was warned by the IMF at the time of the first budget to keep a buffer for an event. You and Labour cheered for those higher taxes and borrowing instead.

So let's look at the facts on defence spending

Year % GDP

Conservatives 1990-1997
This was immediately after the end of the Cold War in 1989:

1990 ~4.0
1991 ~3.7
1992 ~3.9
1993 ~3.4
1994 ~3.2
1995 ~3.0
1996 ~2.7

Labour 1997 -2010
1997 ~2.6
1998 ~2.4
1999 ~2.6
2000 ~2.5
2001 ~2.6
2002 ~2.4
2003 ~ 2.5
2004 ~ 2.4
2005 ~2.3
2006 ~ 2.3
2007 ~2.2
2008 ~ ~2.3
2009 ~ 2.5
2010 ~ 2.47

Conservatives and austerity years

2011 ~2.38
2012 ~2.16
2013 ~ 2.24
2014 ~ 2.14
2015 ~ 2.03
2016 ~ 2.09
2017 ~ 2.08
2018 ~ 2.10
2019 ~ 2.08
2020 ~ 2.35
2021 ~ 2.29
2022 ~ 2.29
2023 ~2.28

Labour
2024 ~2.3
2025 ~2.4
2026 ~ 2.4

So the biggest cuts were under the Conservatives in the post Cold War.
Then Labour kept it fairly stable at around 2.5%.
Then in the austerity years the Conservatives cut it to around 2.1% but in the last 4 years of their 14 year term increased it to 2.3%.
Under the current Labour government this has marginally increased 2.4%.

So in conclusion the tLabour kept spending stable, then Conservatives cut spending, then Conservatives increased spending, then Labour kept spending stable.

Overall yes the cuts in spending were under the Conservatives but so were the increases.

@1dayatatime The cuts far far weighed any increase.

My point though isn't the cuts after 1989, i think those were to some extent justified.

My argument is more about the failure to increase defence spend in the 2010s, when we all knew that Russia was on a different path, Tories as your figures show, still cut.... see the numbers from 2014 to 2019?

Then there is the sell off of capability, dockyards, bases, airfields, unforgiveable, we cannot get these back.

The yards in Devonport sold for housing, recycling plant, airbases and camps built over.

My argument is more about the failure to increase defence spend in the 2010s, when we all knew that Russia was on a different path,

Only problem I have with that is the "all".

By 2010 we were a generation on (gulp) from the period when the two sides were facing each off over the Inner German Border.

Anyone with previous in the mil or political awareness could see the increasing threat under Putin but governments (and more importantly many voters) were still in "swords into ploughshares" mode and I think to some extent still are.

Just back to the stats for one moment and raw percentage of GDP as a metric of defence spending.

As RUSI points out (and they're not the first) it's fairly easy to Inflate figures by moving non defence related items onto the budget from elsewhere in the national spend...at least one European nation has tried this on recently with a major bridge building project...

That sort of sleight of hand is not going to make a massive difference if we're arguing about large differences but when the quibble is maybe between 2.0% and 2.1% then it's relevant.

Actually @Alexandra2001comment on "all" is accurate.

The 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) was heavily criticised at the time for being a budget-driven rather than a strategic one. It resulted in severe cuts, including a 20% reduction in army personnel, premature decommissioning of aircraft carriers, and a 10-year gap in maritime patrol capabilities.

I recognise that this was 15 years ago and people forget (I unfortunately didn't) but it was widely reported and criticised at the time.