The Defence Committee explored the UK’s readiness to fulfil its commitments to NATO during an evidence session with Defence Secretary John Healey, Permanent Secretary David Williams, and Lieutenant General Sir Rob Magowan.
Discussions centred on the UK’s capability to respond to high-intensity conflict, particularly on NATO’s eastern flank, and the importance of ongoing strategic defence reforms.
Healey reiterated the UK’s central role in NATO, highlighting its contributions to collective defence. He emphasised, “We commit the largest part of our Armed Forces across the board to NATO. We commit our independent nuclear deterrent to NATO… We make a massive contribution to NATO. More is asked of us, as it is of all nations.”
Healey acknowledged the strategic importance of NATO, stating, “It is the most successful security alliance in the history of the world… NATO is 32 nations strong, with challenges that we can now meet together, but with the confidence as individual nations that, should any of us come under attack, we will not face those adversaries and threats alone.”
Responding to questions from Mike Martin MP about the UK’s ability to deploy a warfighting division to NATO’s eastern flank, Healey confirmed that detailed assessments have been conducted through a “NATO test.” While specific answers were not shared publicly, he offered to brief the Committee in a classified session. “It is a concern to me that as the leading European NATO nation we are able to make and fulfil our commitments to NATO,” Healey said.
Lieutenant General Sir Rob Magowan underscored the UK’s readiness, stating, “If the British Army was asked to fight tonight, it would fight tonight… However, there is a range of operational risks and operational strengths associated with that division. That is exactly what the strategic defence review is addressing.”
The discussion highlighted the challenges of sustaining high-intensity warfare. Magowan acknowledged, “There are operational risks associated with sustaining that war… We have got more to do to ensure that we can endure the fight. That is what the SDR [Strategic Defence Review] is about.”
He also pointed to the critical role of industrial strategy in ensuring resilience, noting, “Embedding a sovereign industrial base, and an allied industrial base, is essential as the situation changes on the ground.”
Addressing concerns from the Committee’s previous report, “Ready for War?”, which questioned the Armed Forces’ readiness for high-intensity conflict, Magowan stated, “We are ready to go to war, but… there are operational risks associated with sustaining that war. Looking at a particular country in isolation masks the fact that the strength of the alliance is the 32 nations within it.”
Healey pushed the role of the Strategic Defence Review in addressing these challenges, adding, “I want to ensure that we meet [NATO’s asks], and that they are consistent with what we will do to develop our forces and strength in the future.”
“Division”? Oh please Healy, do one. Along with the rest of the political circus. ASAP.
We probably could, in an emergency, if we get every working and deployable piece of kit together and lean ‘heavily’ on AR and probably a limited call up of reservists…
We could probably assemble a rather anemic Division, but it would all but break tbe army to do it….
The reality is, we are now set up to deploy at Brigade level, centred on three Battalions plus supports.
A Division would only be contemplated if war
was looking very likely.
So. your starter for 10: would you expect the SDR to make it a target to deploy properly at division level?
No in a word Paul…
Sneak SDSR25 peak for you
“in conclusion the Army will be smaller, more high tech, lethal and deployable”
Less people, more drones and fireworks….
Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee ?
More like…less people, more drones and “stuff” to be forever trailled.
AA
The warfighting division is for fighting wars!
Like most politicians he’s not with the math.
Nice informed insight there John, do you have any insight you could share that helped form your opinion?
What do you think the nearly 90,000 personnel in British land forces do all day that prevents them from forming a field formation consisting of more than one brigade?
3 (UK) Div, our warfighting division, is declared to NATO…and other units and formations.
If General War came tonight those forces would deploy. Thats the way it works – the PM makes the decision and the military obey orders to deploy.
Of course, that division is not in the best shape to deploy…but that is another matter.
When 5 Inf Bde was tasked to deploy to the Falklands in 1982 as the follow-on brigade, the army did not moan about it although there were many problems – they were minus 2 PARA and 3 PARA, they had not recently and extensively trained in warfighting as a brigade and both Guards battalions were not match-fit having been fully employed on Public Duties. They still deployed.
The Army can be split into three main parts: Combat Forces, Combat Support Forces and Combat Service Support.
The Combat Forces includes the Infantry and Royal Armoured Corps. On 1 April 2022, there were 31 Regular Army and 16 Army Reserve Infantry Battalions, and 15 Royal Armoured Corps Regiments (11 Regular; four Reserves).
The issue is how realistic is it to pull that lot together quickly and get them organised to fight? And then transported to where they are needed
The Field Army is already organised to fight. Organised into sub-units, units and formations.
What is the problem with transport to overseas locations?
The army is not split that way, mate.
That is all on paper if you like.
In the Field Army units are already combined into Bdes and Battlegroups, not great groupings of CS and CSS.
When 1 armoured deployed to Iraq in 91 it was also not fully prepared, still cut through the Iraq army like a knife through butter. No army unit in the history of warfare has ever been fully prepared. There are always deficiencies and missing items. It’s the mark of a capable professional force that it knows it has deficiencies.
Rather think that Rooskies are a touch nastier than Iraqis.
Perhaps more important than being able to fight tonight is being able to win, or at least not lose.
A classified briefing?
Assume that’s things like readiness and supply levels.
I can detail 3 Division right now, and
It’s not a full Division in the traditional sense of the word.
Take the condition of 1 RHA and 19 RA for starters.
I so wish those who are involved in these committee’s could actually grill ministers properly rather than giving them essentiallya free ride, which Healey had the other day when left unchallenged to spin his story lines.
Daniele, Do you know the manning levels of units in 3xx, availability of key battlewinning equipment, collective training state, and quantity and state of stockpiles of munitions and Attrition Reserve equipments? If not, then that will be covered in the classified brefings.
Apparently loads of people on this website no all that, that’s how they can come up with such informed opinions like “your having a laugh” or “britain is shit at everything”
Some of them even claim to be Patriots 😀
The other half work in a dingy basement outside st Petersburgh.
Never unpatriotic to point out glaring holes in our forces. This is not Russia/China/N Korea. One thing we fight for is free speech. Wanting the UK to be better is nopt a fault. Wanting to cover up & BS the truth is. Was Churchill “Unpatriotich” for pointing out the looming storm before WW2?
It is unpatriotic when people are peddling false information in support of kremlin psyops programs. Why do you think the Russian and Chinese government pay people to comment on UKDJ?
Hi Jim,
Quite right, I also get fed up with all the claptrap that comes from some, and especially main stream media. Anything to do our nation down. Yes it’s true we may lack in some areas that many on this site know full well. However, many other nations militaries aspire to be the same as the UK. The UK is regarded as one of the best, not the biggest. To be the best doesn’t mean to be the biggest!
Cheers
George
I agree
Very true indeed!
It has a proven track record of presenting a fast, fluid, adaptive response to dynamic situations and delivers braniac solutions at pace and with verve.
No. Which is what I referenced regards supplies And readiness.
What they cannot hide is the ORBAT and what establishment those formations should be.
In our case, work downward.
We don’t buy we should. Do you really think the likes of China and Russian intelligence or even Iran doesn’t have this information. The only people that don’t are the uk public. I assume yo keep under wraps just how bad things really are.
Yes but it’s not information people are sharing it’s kremlin disinformation. As the Chief of the Defence staff and the head of the British army both point out the army is ready to fight the Russians tonight if need be. Is it missing stuff, yes, is the army always missing stuff, yes. Would the Russian army be missing stuff, hell yes.
Russian and Chinese propaganda wants our people to feel weak and defenceless so they are unwilling to take action.
This is exactly what happened in 1938 and useful idiots in Britain plaid along with it then as now.
Go to the USA z right now and despite them spending $1 trillion a year useful idiots are crying about how defenceless America is.
Lots of useful idiots being lead by Russian bots in this comment section as well.
Fighting tonight? of course, no-one doubts Army agression, Supplying loggie spt. tonight and for the next 6-12 months? hmmn, Winning tonight or over the next 6-12 months, with fewest possible casualties? your guess is maybe better than mine.
What’s a divisions in the traditional sense of the word? I seem to think the division has changed multiple times over the centuries. If our current division is not a proper division then can you tell us what is a proper division?
How would you describe a military unit that consisted of more than one brigade but less than two divisions.
I always thought a traditional Division was based on 3 Brigades, with various extra supports bolted on for the deployment.
Up to 2015 our Divisions had 3 manoeuvre Brigades.
That is, Brigades each with their own CS CSS that can, if necessary, self deploy in a Bde level enduring operation.
In 2009 we had 2 Divisions and 8 Brigades.
Post 2010 1 Division and 7 Brigades, 2 of which were in 1 Division, a Division in name only.
Post 2015, our warfighting Division was planned to have 4 Bdes, in the Strike plan.
Post A2020R, it has 2 Brigades, plus the DRSB the issues and politics around which I’ve explained many times.
The ideal Division was ironically the post 2010 SDSR 3 Division with 6 Warrior Bns, 3 HPM Bns, 3 Armoured Regiments, 3 Armd Recc Regiments, 3 AS90 Regs, 3 RE CS Reg, 3 REME Bn, 3 RS Reg,
3 RLC CS Reg, 1 MLRS Reg, and other Divisional elements.
The A2020R review screwed that and we’ve never recovered, which is why I and others always lament bitterly Strike, Boxer, and General Carter who took A2020 and turned it on its head, removing yet more previous CS and CSS, supported by the awful DS Michael Fallon.
I can provide more detail if you wish.
That’s depressing reading.
1 Div ( Pre 2010 ) 4 Mechanized, 7th Armoured, 20th Armoured. ( This was the main “warfighting Division”
3 Div ( Pre 2010 ) 1 Mechanized, 12 Mechanized, 19 Mechanized ( Changed by Labour into 19 Light to enable cuts to armour and artillery )
Plus 16 Air Assault and 3 Commando RM.
All formations full CS CSS bar 3 Commando.
Post 2010 SDSR, so Army 2020.
7 Armoured changed to 7 Infantry, 4 Mech to 4 Infantry, 19 Light cut )
3 Div ( Now the “Warfighting Div ) 1 Armd Inf, 12 Armd Inf, 20 Armd Inf. ( Reaction Force )
1 Div ( A “Golfbag” and the “Adaptable Force” They put 7 Brigades in it, to me a cynical attempt ( like the DRSB today ) to make the army look bigger Bde wise, when in reality most of those Bdes were regional/admin formations )
4 Infantry, 7 Infantry, 51 Infantry, 160 Welsh, 42 N West, 15? N East, 38 Irish.
Of these, 7 Infantry and either 4 or 51 Inf ( it was never clear to me which ) had the full set of regular CS CSS formations to make them actually deployable. ( Adaptable Force )
So 1,12,20,7,51 or 4, plus 16 AA and 3 Cdo. SEVEN BRIGADES.
We can only dream of that now, without major reorg, as in 2015 SDSR Strike wrecked it.
Post 2015 ( So Army 2020 Refine )
3 Div 12 Armd Inf, 20 Armd Inf, 1 Armd Inf downgraded to become a “Strike Bde” ( This was the sly cut, they COULD have created 2 Strike Bdes out of the 2 deployable Bdes in 1 Div but downgraded a precious infantry Bde. THIS is the key cut which is why now our Division has lost its 3rd Armoured Infantry Bde.
1 Div Same as above, with one Bde to become a “Strike Bde” and join 3 UK Div as a 4 Bde set up, 12,20 Armd, 1, +1 Strike ( Was never clear to me which, I’d guess 7 Inf )
As part of Strike, more CS CSS units were cut, leaving us with 3 Armd Inf Brigades plus 7 Infantry Bde plus 16 Air Assault. 3 Cdo is similarly dismembered at this time.
With Strike failing, the 1st Armd Inf bde is “merged” with 1 Artillery Bde ( a UK based admin formation ) to form the Deep Recc Strike Bde, DRSB. “Merged” my foot, it is another cut to get rid of Warrior Bns.
The sole “hangover” from these endless changes is that the KRH, Kings Royal Hussars, which should have converted into Ajax from Challenger, the change delayed due to the Ajax issues, so even though we now only have 2 Armoured Brigade Combat Teams ( A ridiculous Americanism creeping in again ) we still have 3 Armoured Regiments from when 1 Armd Inf Bde existed.
So now
12,20 Armoured.
7 Light Mech.
4 Infantry.
16 Air Assault.
DRSB is questionable as it cannot deploy alone as it lacks regular CSS beyond a REME Bn.
That is the timeline as I recall it, I appreciate it is difficult to follow.
Cheers.
That might have been the ideal, but even then you look at the 2010 SDSR division and think “how long would that last?” Even with the ideal, there isn’t enough mass to sustain for a prolonged period. And I think that’s just the uncomfortable problem. The British Armed Forces are no longer capable of fighting a peer or long war without massive investment and recruitment which won’t happen.
Well it was “ideal” because everything relevant was put on it. Basically as Ryan says it had no depth for sustained combat except if only one brigade was fighting at time.
Yes. The 2010 Division I think had more depth than the previous ones, as it’s brigades had 3 Bns rather than 2.
The difference is pre 2010 we had 2 of them, the UK one not quite the same but still a full Divisional formation.
Another reason why I favour an RN RAF Intell community first posture, we will only ever be so big in the land domain without the huge investment you describe.
And there are other NATO nations to assist in the land area, air and sea and niche enablers we should concentrate more on.
Having said that, to have some relevance, the UK should have a minimum a full a division to SACEUR, and it’s not.
That’s what I want the review to sort out.
My fear is they’ll go and gut the RN and RAF to go all land centric which to me is strategically inept.
Why are you not factoring in the deep strike brigade? You yourself have agreed with me in the past that long range precision fire and reconnaissance are the most important factors in modern warfare, how useful are manoeuvre brigades and why would you want three?
Where is the deep strike equipment and training?
Obviously the whole army is unbalanced. Very few Boxers are infantry transporters, most are support.
An overabundance of Ajax than only make sense if many go to be missile launchers (Brimstone, whatever) or converted to infantry.
Not much air defence. No FPV/drone battalions. At least a battalion level training should already been stand up and in simulator training.
Graham has explained this before.
A triangular Division has 2 Bdes forward, line abreast if you like, to cover X amount of front, with the third in rear to reinforce in the defensive or even exploit if the Division is going forward.
With only 2, all that flexibility and firepower is lost.
As a non Sandhurst, non army guy, that’s the best I can explain and Graham, Dern, and others will do a better job than me.
I do agree with you on Deep Fires and ISTAR in general, for me ISTAR is key.
The DRSB, as I’ve detailed before, consists of the 2 Armoured Bdes designated Close Support Artillery Regiments, paired with MLRS Regiments and various ISTAR assets, from Ajax in Armoured Cavalry Regiments to UAV to more specialised ISTAR assets in 5RA.
It has no regular CSS of its own save a TEME Bn. In the Field in war it would rely on reservists to supply it’s close logistic needs and medical support. Such a CSSB, Combat Service Support battalion, so a hybrid of various cap badges, has been trialled on exercise.
It would need supporting infantry and otger assets assigned to it from other formations.
Graham has often explained Task Org’ing in the field to overcome this but I still look at it and see it as an attempt to make the army look like it has more deployable Brigades than it has.
It cannot deploy alone, it’s the Divisions DAG.
Why not just keep that 3rd Armoured Bde that was “merged” so cut, and give each Bde organic artillery?
Or describe it as it is, a DAG.
Previously, DAGs were not given Brigade numbers! Though I do recall briefly there was a 1 Artillery “Division” in BAOR.
Give DRSB a couple of infantry Bns on Boxer and give it that 3rd Armoured Regiment ( KRH ) some regular CSS and we are in business.
My tuppence worth is that it doesn’t much matter.
Crazy, brave, courageous, survivalist warriors who make do with minimal supplies and logistics are the unfortunate heros of forward deployable forces…….and they do it in extremis.
The rest is still more malleable, more fluid and adaptive than the arguments here give credit for.
The art of British forces and it’s perceived success lies in its fluidity and pragmatic rejection of fixating terms of reference.
War is chaos. Adaptation and fluidity of control and resource allocation is the response.
Unless there is a major investment of funds in the Armed Forces and a competent reorganisation of the forces based in reality not fantasy then I don’t see us being able to deploy more than a few Battalions at any one time. Just look at what we could deploy to Afghanistan when there was more money and manpower
In General War, just about everything in the Field Army goes out of the front door.
But outside of general war Graham, I would be amazed of we ever deploy more than a Brigade these days.
Not many operations require a division to deploy. The last time we, or anyone else for that matter, deployed a division it was for the two Gulf Wars. But the capabilty required is based on the worst scenario presenting and that requires us to field an armoured division and more.
As this moron been drug tested, we do not have a full Div, what ever they are smoking in GSHQ they need to pass it around. We do not have a full Div we do not even have enough Artillery for it unless you include the Light gun we gave every thing else away.
When will these people be honest, up front and stop bluffing and being yes men and go back to being soldiers and leaders? its sad and fools only the stupid and the Government.
If we are the leading European NATO Nation then I am scared, very scared. Thank ago arusdia failed in defeating Ukrain in a week that’s all I can say, at least we have a hope that a real fighting force in Poland might offer resistance soon while we sit on our hands talking about it.
Ok what if Vlad launches some ballistic or cruise missiles at our military bases or cities tonight?
Our lack of long range air defence systems is shameful.
Its not just about armed forces readiness. Do we have the Industrial capacity to fight a war of attrition with Russia, NK, Iran ? I fear we dont.
I don’t think it’s the case of just Britain alone, against ruZZia, NK and Iran. It is going to be the whole of Europe they will be coming for.
The economics of Europe alone, far outweighs ruZZia NK and Iran, so should have the potential military industry capacity to produce much superior equipment in reasonable quantity.
The autocracies that we will be up against have maintained large armies and the industrial capacity to support it over the last 3 decades.
In the same period, both our armed forces and our industries have atrophied. and now we are playing catch-up.
Right now our enemies outproduce us massively, The fact Russia is still carrying out attacks across many fronts in UKR has proves this. They have taken huge losses, but still, they keep advancing.
It’s been like that since the 50’s. If Russia launches ballistic missiles at us out of the blue we would retaliate with nuclear weapons before Russian missiles reached the ground.
A welterweight may be ready to fight a heavyweight but that doesn’t mean he can beat him.
Yeap, our very brave armed forces will without thought throw themselves in harms way willingly, knowing full well they are ill equipped and ill prepared and there isn’t enough of them.
The people who are reasonable for this dire situation will be safely at home, probably sitting in a hardened shelter , giving mealy mouth platitudes about it has taken us by surprise, how with more time we could have been better prepared,
Frankly every defence secretary , prime minister and chancellor for the last 20 years should be on the front line, leading the charge. Maybe then they might think about their cuts , craft accounting and the consequences to this country.
Particularly like your plan for ex-pms/defence secs etc.
Every one of those high ranking officers who kept quiet for their own progression, then appear on Sky news with General/Admiral/Air Vice Marshall (retd.) to bemoan the state they left the forces in. Send them first. In Chinese made flammable fatigues with a bayonet welded on a gas pipe.
Political spin. The usual papering over the cracks/chasms by those in charge to cover the travesty of 30+ years of reckless cuts.
We all know we need a sustained, major uplift in spending & 5 to 10 years to bring UK forces to where they need to be, where they should be. European defence levels baing so badly neglected are a major cause of Putin’s belief he could get away(& could still) with invading UKR.
Shame on us all.
Of course the Army etc are always up for a fight. Just ATM we’d struggle very badly to deploy sufficient forces, with reduced morale, with dodgy equipment & only a few weeks ammo. Probably deficient in artilliary support & heavy armour.
But politicians can always lie/spin, grandstand & blame the others for doing what they themselves where guilty of.
Mixed massages in one week the press reports from credible sources we are ready and the we are not ready and so it goes on.
Considering we have enough ammunition and missiles to last for 7 days I am not optimistic.
what nonse is this, any escalation of ukraine will be a tactical nuclear weapons conflict thoughout the european plain, tanks will be a waste of time
the only question are the USA willing to sacrifice europe to hobble russia’s weapons arsenal, thereby leaving only china, who in reality are only a regional power
Ukraine does not have any tactical nuclear weapons, AFAIK. They would have no option but to continue to fight the Russians with conventional weapons, especially tanks.
When Britain was a mostly White Christian country with shared history, values and culture they could do anything – wwi, wwii, korea, Falklands etc. etc. Now it’s way harder because 1. British patriotism is synonymous with racism, 2. There is no longer a shared or unified “British culture,” 3. There’s nothing to rally around in a fragmented society with various enclaves and no go areas. 4. If you hoist the union jack – racist 5. Young white indigenous males have been told repeatedly in school and uni and the BBC that they are the problem, not the solution. And colonial crimes are on them, not the “newcomers.” They should be ashamed. 6. Males have been told not to b masculine. It’s masculinity and aggression that does the war fighting. This is now not cool in woke Britain because of hurt feelings etc.
I honestly do not see the traditional squaddie type of past, poor white mostly Northerners enlisting in large numbers to fight for mass immigration and for Starmer. Or Charles, the royals. Or the country, whatever that means. Post Brexit Gen Z and many many others (approx 50%) do not even feel British, instead they feel European or “global citizens.” How do square all that with defence of the realm and Russia breathing down your neck? I don’t see it. What am I missing, please tell me I am all ears.
I don’t think you’re missing anything. Took a walk around Peckham today – hard to see anything left of Britain to fight for
Here, here! Excellent summary of Britain today Malcolm! I have seen signs that read ‘no whites allowed’ spray painted on housing estate walls in Birmingham. Who would have thought we’d see that in Britain!! Pathetic….
It is going to need some kind of constitutional earthquake which able to literally re-form the country. In the meantime gruppenfuhrer Starmer will wrap himself in the flag, crush all the criminals and lead us forwards to National Socialism. Prayer is your best bet now.
While I understand the concerns raised in your commentary about identity, unity, and patriotism in contemporary Britain, I respectfully disagree with several of the underlying assumptions. Historical context can provide valuable insights into why the old ways of unity and shared culture are unlikely to return in the same form, and why that may not be as problematic as it seems.
Diversity as a Strength: Historically, Britain’s global reach was a product of its imperial past, which led to a diverse population through colonisation and migration. This diversity was not always harmonious, but it has enriched British society in countless ways, including culture, cuisine, and artistic expression. The idea that a homogenised society is stronger overlooks the contributions made by various communities. Societies can be unified through shared values of exclusivity and mutual respect, rather than a singular cultural identity.
Evolving Definitions of Patriotism: Patriotism is not inherently synonymous with racism. While it’s true that certain expressions of nationalism have been co-opted to promote exclusionary agendas, patriotism can also embody a commitment to justice, equality, and the well-being of all citizens, regardless of their background. Historical figures and movements have demonstrated that love for one’s country can include advocating for the rights of marginalised communities and embracing multiculturalism.
Adapting to Change: The concept of “British culture” has never been static. It has continuously evolved through interactions with various cultures, waves of immigration, and social changes. The notion that a singular, monolithic culture existed in the past is often romanticised and ignores the complexities of British history, including the rich tapestry of regional identities and communities that have always existed within it. Acceptance of change and progress can foster resilience rather than insecurity.
Generational Perspectives: Young people’s feelings of identity are naturally evolving, especially in the context of globalisation and increased digital connectivity. Their understanding of citizenship can encompass broader frameworks beyond traditional national narratives. This does not indicate a lack of commitment to the nation; rather, it suggests a preference for a more inclusive and global perspective. This generational shift could lead to innovative approaches to national defence and civic responsibility that readily adapts to modern challenges.
Redefining Masculinity and Strength: The idea that masculinity is solely tied to aggression and war-fighting is a limited understanding of strength. History shows us that many leaders and warriors have embraced different forms of strength, including diplomacy, strategic thinking, and emotional intelligence. A society that promotes diverse expressions of masculinity can cultivate a more comprehensive approach to conflict resolution and leadership, contrasting with the outdated notion that aggression is inherently valuable. Do we embrace Putin!
The transformation of society is not inherently detrimental; rather, it is a sign of growth and adaptation. Britain’s ability to face contemporary challenges, including defence and international relations, may well depend on its willingness to embrace diversity and redefine unity in ways that reflect its current realities, rather than yearning for a past that may never have been as unified as it is often portrayed. The future may require a re-imagined sense of community that includes everyone, rather than reverting to historical paradigms that have been outgrown.
A decent argument. A rich tapestry of regional identities tendered to work well within the old regimental systems, and, during WWI and WWII, tight integration of commonwealth forces under British Army command from countries such as India or South Africa that had quite diverse traditions and societies. (I’ll leave out the Gurkhas, as that’s a special case due to martial traditions, but it is another example of diversity).
Or, one can also compare 1933 Britain (“That this House will under no circumstances fight for its King and country” from an Oxford that was far more influential than it is today and with Hitler reaching power) yet Britain – and many Oxford graduates – did fight.
So, there are some general principles which govern the birth of national identity. The first is ‘christening’ : that is to say a priestly figure has to pronounce the arrival of the new entity. Bede did this in his Ecclesiastical history when he used the phrase ‘the peoples of this isle’. That is to say, all the tribes who are here in this place at this time constitute a single nation’. The second principle is that the pronouncement needs to be made a practical reality: the nation needs to be forged. This happens when separate tribes work together to defend the shared homeland. England, Scotland and Ireland were all formed as nation states by this process. The third principle is that if you forget who you are you have to go through the forging process again e.g. Spanish Armada, Napoleon, WW1 and WW2.
Each time you are reforged the furnace includes more immigrant tribes to produce a different ‘alloy’. But the core culture remains. For England this is the Christian culture of the Wessex line of king. Charles III coronation ceremony has not changed in over 1000 years. It is this culture which draws immigrants, who believe in its tolerance.
Believe in its tolerance ? Thats one way of saying it I suppose. Take advantage of is another.
Identity politics is toxic to any sense of national unity.
It encourages victimhood mentality, nursing of historic grievances, which manifests itself as masochism and nihilism.
I have never known a time like this when people have such a hostile attitude. toward the history and culture of the country they were born into.
A very good response and defence of the U.K. as it is today but sorry you need to see beyond these sweeping statements and travel around the U.K. to see things on the ground.
London has a majority foreign born population and so do some other large city’s. Many of these people have allegiance to their country of birth and live in parallel communities where the English language is not the first spoken. I personally don’t blame them for any of that but don’t be fooled many are U.K. citizens in name only.
We have forgotten that a basic set of common principles and values are important and many of our political leaders continually emphasis different identities rather than what binds us together. Indeed instead of being strong on what we expect from new arrivals and clearly what is not acceptable we have those who turn a blind eye or who tell the majority we should just accept the difference.
That is the road to civil unrest and in a country whose GDP per capita puts us at 26th or 27th in the world rankings and falling, no amount of spin about having the 6th largest economy will make people feel like things are going to get better.
In that environment expect political extremism to grow in response to the mainstreams inability to be honest and change direction. We often follow US trends and I personally don’t like him but the election of Mr Trump should tell you of the disconnect across the West between our political leaders and the population.
Your argument touches on several valid points about the current landscape of the UK, but to address them thoroughly, it’s essential to consider the broader historical and economic context.
The UK’s economy has historically thrived on its ability to engage and integrate with global markets. This integration was born out of necessity due to its geographical limitations and resource scarcity. British imperialism was largely a response to the need for resources and markets that could not be satisfied internally. The empire allowed Britain to exploit global resources, drive trade, and establish a dominant position in the world economy. This legacy underscores the importance of maintaining strong connections with global markets, which is particularly relevant in the face of Brexit.
Brexit, by its nature, has fractured these vital connections. The argument isn’t merely about the movement of people, but rather involves the free flow of goods, services, and investment that sustains industries across the UK. Without access to the broader European and global markets, the UK risks diminishing its standing as an economic power. The loss of these connections could exacerbate the very issues you highlight, such as economic stagnation and feelings of disenfranchisement among citizens. While it’s undeniable that integration brings challenges—such as the complexities of cultural identity—it ultimately bolsters the economy and creates a more dynamic society.
Regarding the social dynamics you mentioned—the presence of foreign-born populations and their potential disconnect with traditional English values—these are indicative of globalisation’s dual nature. Immigration has historically revitalised communities and fuelled economic growth. However, it also necessitates thoughtful integration strategies that foster shared values and strengthen social cohesion. This requires leadership dedicated to balancing diversity and unity, focusing on common principles that bind communities together rather than divide them.
Turning to the political climate, the rise of figures like Donald Trump does indeed reflect a growing schism between political elites and the general populace. In the face of economic uncertainty and cultural change, it’s natural for people to seek out solutions that seem to promise immediate and tangible benefits. However, advocating for isolation, as seen in both Trump’s policies and Brexit, can lead to regression rather than progress. The challenge lies in developing inclusive policies that address the concerns of all citizens, irrespective of their backgrounds, while maintaining the UK’s crucial ties to the global marketplace.
The argument isn’t merely that UK citizens are living in parallel communities or that there’s a disconnect with traditional values. It’s about recognising that a robust economy relies on integration into global markets and embracing the diversity that comes with it. Ultimately, the path toward a prosperous future in the UK requires a commitment to both economic integration and social unity that values diversity while promoting shared identities and values.
Unfortunately a reliance on arguments about the downside of Brexit and the benefits of a high levels of immigration neglect to reflect on the U.K’s poor economic growth since at least 2008. Indeed if high levels of immigration were so good for a country why is the U.K. not booming after a quarter of a century of it. The policy has miserably failed at every level.
The economic impact of Brexit put at around a loss of 4% of GDP is not why the U.K. is in such a poor state if only it were that simple.
We have unbalanced economy highly reliant on financial services based in London and cheap foreign labour that has sucked the life and investment out of much of the rest of the country. The disparity between the GDP per capita of London compared to the rest of the country is shocking.
For quite sound demographic reasons young intelligent new citizens were required but instead we have millions of low skilled and ill educated from the third world. To say that many are a poor cultural fit is an understatement which is not there fault in the slightest.
That many voters are looking at alternatives to the mainstream parties is inevitable as there policies have clearly failed and all they offer is more on the same.
We can all expect more volatility in our political and cultural life.
Your spot on Malcolm it’s a sad truth 😟
Only in the NAAFI after too much beer.
Thanks to Ukraine, we would not have to deal with the 700,000 plus dead and injured Russians- is that not so!
And by Christmas, the Army would be a spent force.
Fighting is one thing, winning is another.
I’d like a pint of whatever the bigwigs in the MOD have been drinking, come on folks, get real. the armed forces are in a terrible state and only a really hard hitting SDSR has any hope of returning some firepower to our armed forces.
Army- too small, major projects delayed and overspent- need direct fire sorting out, all C2s upgraded to C3 standard and more troops adding back onto the army roster- 5000-10,000 more. Sort out recruitment- return to a standard of 2 months from applying to either joining or being declined. no recruit should apply and have to wait 6 months to hear if they are even being considered. sort out armed forces and RFA pay- give them all an uplift of 10K- we can afford that across the board – if we can afford to pay junior doctors 23% extra over 3 years and consultants +18% immediately, then there is the fiasco of the medical strikes when NHS doctors were being paid £250/hour for working during the strikes- all of a sudden you’ve never seen so many senior medics covering nights and weekends. Some radiologists have earned +£250,000/ annum with overtime- that’s a huge sum of money.
RN- far too small, too few warships, ASW and MCM and sub sea infrastructure defences really lacking and need sorting out- only adding more type 26s and more ASW specialist assets will resolve this matter. we also need more type 31s ordering to provide adequate patrol and surface action capable warships.
Aukus needs pushing through to construction immediately really with sequential build with dreadnought programme
RAF- another batch of typhoons whilst awaiting tempest or push through tempest to construction asap. UK ground based air defence- needs massively sorting out- the ability of any enemy of this nation to fire cruise or ballistic missiles at us and we have virtually zero defence unless an active type 45 just happens to be in the right place at the right time or a typhoon is airborne and can target that threat… seems sketchy at best to me.
I agree & If in 18 months time nothing has been done as far as building up & re arming UK in any meaningful way and no large social housebuilding has been started. I will resign my Labour Membership. Tory disastrous Nation mismanagement which has put UK national security at risk. IMO only . Case in question Johnson met up with old KGB High up officer (Once a KGB officer, always a KGB officer) & friend of Putin on Greek Island with no one with Johnson. So no one knows what was discussed in private.
We do not fight wars of attrition. We fight wars of manouevre.
Ultimately, the UK’s preference for manoeuvre warfare and multinational operations is driven by a strategic vision that aims for decisive outcomes, minimizes casualties, and enhances international collaboration. This approach not only reflects historical lessons and the realities of contemporary warfare but also aligns with the broader objectives of maintaining security and stability in an increasingly complex global landscape. By pursuing these strategies, the UK military positions itself as a capable and reliable partner in international efforts to maintain peace and order.
What would be great, and it will never happen, is for the goverment to setup a transparent review of expenditure comparing return on investment of the UK military against our peers like France and answer the question of if it’s delivering similar value or if there has been gross corruption or gross negligence. Followed by a review of what really causes the issues, e.g the ajax program.
Once the reality is known, whatever it is, then issues can be actually addressed rather than endless patch jobs that seem to end up making things worse, because they are politicians changes rather than as a result if a real root cause investigation
I don’t the British Army will be able to fight, the question is for how long and how effectively?
I think UK Army only has around 15000 regular frontline (Warfighting) infantry. 5000 Royal Marine Commandoes. A very small number of Reserve Infantry Battalions, probably all at peace time strength of 400 to 4500 maned Battalions . During the Cold War, one frontline Infantry Battalion Strength was between 1000 to 1100 & wartime strength could double that number as UK had large 80000 Army reserve. Not Enough modern Tanks. Not Enough Modern heavy Artlery-155mm+. Not Enough RAF UK Airfields. Frontline Modern Fighter Jets & only have 1500 RAF Regiment soldiers. Europe has a Hot War raging on its soil by an invading aggressive military power. Russia has a Ruthless Tyrant Dictator in conquest mode. Since end of English civil war. We have always based our Army on the continent to try and prevent a land war actually reaching the UK mainland by any invading Army. So like the UK has a Battle Group in Estonia “Which would not stop Russia but if Russia attacks NATO troops at any point in future, it will drag the western world into a Conflict against Putin.WW2 UK had the British expeditionary force stationed along Belgium French border.UK Politicians need to wake up to the real and present Russian military danger. Sainsbury chemical attack should of been an eyeopener. We should be following Poland in re Arming. Build frigate. Destroyers and Submarines in larger numbers & take Harland & Wolff Ship yards. One of only 2 that can dry dock our Aircraft Carriers but can also Build for RN. Just my thoughts on matter.
that should be. peace time strength of 400 to 450 maned Battalions
take Harland & Wolff Ship yards in state hands to build more RN ships.