Starmer's vision quest

[Dorset Boy]

The war in Ukraine and the lunacy of the Trump presidency gave Starmer the chance to be genuinely honest with the electorate but he chose not to be. He could easily have explained that in this changed world we need to spend more on defence but it comes at a cost to us as tax payers, and therefore he needs to increase Income Tax. To protect the poorest, he could increase the personal allowance too.

 

[CXRAndy]

Whilst I do agree with this to a point, equal blame has to go on to us as the public. People want defence spending increased but they don't want to pay for it out of their pocket through higher taxes, or want to accept cuts to other services to fund it. Politicians don't want to lose votes so they end up compromising their intended policy to keep the status quo.

People who are wealthier don't want to shoulder the tax burden so they tell people that are poorer that it is immigrants who are taking up all the services and benefits and that is why we have less public money.

I have said it before, Labour is a party based on socialist principles and should act as such. Increase public spending, increase defence spending, make the wealthiest pay for it. The wealthy will always make the argument that why should they? They should do so simply because the vast majority have either made their money through the labour of others, or through inherited wealth, which will nearly always again have been made through the labour of others.

The OECD are saying more tax raids on the poor for paying for services you luvvies want.

Rachel from accounts is doing a wonderful job

 

[bobzmyunkle]

People want defence spending increased

I doubt it's as big a priority for 'people' as it is for Starmer. The cosplay Colonel looking for his Falklands moment?
Anyhow this report suggests a 20bn spend of which 15bn is 'new nuclear warheads and long range weapons'. Is that a war the UK is threatened with?
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g2jr1m49no

 

[midlandsgrimpeur]

I doubt it's as big a priority for 'people' as it is for Starmer. The cosplay Colonel looking for his Falklands moment?
Anyhow this report suggests a 20bn spend of which 15bn is 'new nuclear warheads and long range weapons'. Is that a war the UK is threatened with?
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g2jr1m49no

Perhaps not, but if people in countries across Western Europe think that we don't face a significant threat in the coming decades they are being a touch naïve perhaps. I do not have any defence expertise but assume the proposed 15 billion on nukes and long range weapons is in response to how wars are likely to be targeted in future and also the old MAD theory. Whether one agrees with the nuclear deterrent on this principle or not, is perhaps an entirely different discussion.

 

[CXRAndy]

Wars could be very different in the future. Ukraine has given the military world an insight to mini drone warfare.

Now imagine a fleet of hundreds of thousands of small attack drones coordinated in simultaneous attack upon a town/city/ military installations/government establishments.

They could literally destroy all defence capability without wiping the target off the map like a nuke would do.

 

[Psamathe]

I doubt it's as big a priority for 'people' as it is for Starmer. The cosplay Colonel looking for his Falklands moment?
Anyhow this report suggests a 20bn spend of which 15bn is 'new nuclear warheads and long range weapons'. Is that a war the UK is threatened with?
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g2jr1m49no

But, whilst I can't envisage Russian troops boarding ships to cross the channel and invade, a significant element of some countries is their belief in "Zero Sum Game" so eg UK does badly means Russia does well. Hence the (apparent) ongoing cyber attacks on UK infrastructure and companies. Whilst some are private hackers after money, others are futile and apparently traceable to Russian/Chinese "state operators" and against operations that legally cannot pay out money (eg NHS).

Whilst to fight such attacks we don't need lots of squaddies with up-to-date weaponry but it all becomes more of a collaborative defence effort with our allies ie we all contribute to common defence. They get the perceived cover of eg our nuclear weapons and we benefit from their defending the power/energy conduits from them we depend on and shared intelligence.

Maybe defence is no longer an individual country effort but a shared effort between allies BUT we still need it on a country basis as allies can change (eg current US rejection of Europe).

And then there is the aspect of "a seat at the table", UK "punching above its weight".

Ian

 

[bobzmyunkle]

And then there is the aspect of "a seat at the table", UK "punching above its weight".

Which table? I believe we're still reliant on the US for nukes and they have ultimate control of them.

 

[Pblakeney]

I wonder the amount of people against increasing taxes/spending on defence but for the navy stopping boats.

Spoiler - Ask them how many ships we have readily available to stop the boats.

 

[Psamathe]

Which table? I believe we're still reliant on the US for nukes and they have ultimate control of them.

My understanding (from a detailed interview I heard) with UK defence minister where unusually he was answering the questions, we have full control of our nukes but we are dependent on the US for servicing/maintenance/updates (eg software). Nukes are ours under our control it's the delivery (Trident) where we need the US for maintenance and they have to periodically go back to US for this maintenance. https://www.chathamhouse.org/2025/0...-support-there-are-no-other-easy-alternatives

"Table" as in international influence we as a small countryt still to a degree have but don't really warrant.

Ian

 

[CXRAndy]

I wonder the amount of people against increasing taxes/spending on defence but for the navy stopping boats.

Spoiler - Ask them how many ships we have readily available to stop the boats.

We don't need large ships, we need, drone surveillance around the clock and fast attack type boats.

 

[Xipe Totec]

fast attack type boats.

Are those small ones?

 

[matticus]

12 new nuclear submarines is not going to happen any time soon, we don't have the capacity to build them, nor, the money

How silly of Starmer not to plan for this 10 years ago.

 

[CXRAndy]

Are those small ones?

High speed intercept craft

 

[icowden]

High speed intercept craft

And once they have intercepted, what do you propose to do?

 

[CXRAndy]

And once they have intercepted, what do you propose to do?

Drag the biggers back to France