Labour promise to ‘rearm Britain’ in speech

When u get your facts right I’ll read your answers. Since I deal with them in local government every day I should know
I’ve also claimed benefits and if you think they actually make u apply for jobs I’ve got a bridge in London I can let you have at a great rate

I spent 3 years looking after a family member and those descriptions are things I was made to do. I also got sanctioned for not complying.
If it’s easier for people to have more money not working that is the fault of the benefits system for not making low paid work pay more than being unemployed.
If people are on the sick that shouldn’t be again that’s the fault of the system not the people.
Can’t blame people for taking the easy way through life.

I’m on PIP myself so I have more experience than most and yes I blame people that lie and cheat the system to claim money they don’t deserve, they are the reason that often real people struggling are hounded by the system as an easy target while the real cheats get away with it. I will never blame a severely sick person but i can personally name at least four people that get over 20k a year from multiple benefits and openly say to me “why would you bother working when you can get more claiming”
The system is very much to blame, as a society as a whole more and more people have an “I’m entitled” attitude
Hilariously a friend paralysed from the waist down was asked by a PIP advisor if his illness had got better in the last three years! He was then asked if he really needed to claim
Also if you were claiming for being a full time carer you can’t be forced by the benefits agency into employment or be penalised for being a carer.

280 a month? Try 30k a year once all the perks are included. The welfare bill this year is 180 BILLION not including the state pension. 6 million people paid for idleness when there are labor shortages everywhere

In France you need to have paid their equivalent of NI for122 days within the last 2 fiscal years before you can take a penny of welfare. No exceptions
In Australia all welfare recipients are required to do a day a week of work in the community in return for their benefits. Fail to turn up and you lose your benefit for that period automatically. No exceptions.
In the US you receive 40% of benefit in the form of food stamps, which can only be redeemed for a limited range of essentials

The UK is an outlier and middle class taxpayers are tired of financing it.

The U.K. spends nearly 3% gdp on income related benefits compared with 5.3% in France.
The UK has one of the least generous out-of-work benefits systems for workers on average earnings in the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) the institute for fiscal studies says.

That’s totally not true, I was part of the criminal world till a spell away changed my outlook. I’m not talking about professional scammers although they exist and claim millions in different identities. I’m talking about whole estates where everyone is on the sick in one way or another, yet there is very little wrong with them, while seriously disabled actually push themselves to work to have a better life. Trust me I’ve known people say to me, why work for £11 an hour, I can claim just less claiming housing, Pip, disability attendance allowance and others and they have all their time free. The figures of how many more claim every year are horrific and are unsustainable.
In my experience the best way would be a benefits card like a cash card that can be used in the same way but can’t be used to get cash and can’t buy drugs cigarettes or alcoholic drinks.

They have a point tho. Why work in some dead end minimum wage job if it’s easy to get the same or more money not working. For some people that’s the option.
Again that’s the system that’s broken. The fact people take advantage of it is just human nature. Fix the system is my view. Work should also pay more than not working. If that means giving people on low income top ups then unfortunately that’s what’s needed.

Well some people take advantage. I gave up my previous life and started work on minimum wage until I worked my way up to more. Personally I was brought up to work even if I earned the same money because it gives u self respect.
If that’s not enough I pity what our nation has become. There is a lack of work ethic. People shouldn’t have to be brided to do the right thing.
Having recently seen Singapore where most people strive to better themselves and earn more, I can’t help but feel our nation has taken a wrong turn

HERE i WAS THINKING LABOUR WOULDN’T COMMIT TO SAYING ANYTHING ON DEFENCE BECAUSE THAY HAVE NOTHING TO SAY. 🙄 I think I pushed the caplock?

So you would have allowed the banks to crash in 2009/10 and forced people to stay at home during COVID with no support for them or their employer? There wouldn’t be much left of the economy if that had happened.
The real problem, which without change will only get worse, is the underlying structural deficit. This has been created by an expansion of welfare support initiated by Gordon Brown and maintained with a bit of trimming by later governments. The issue of pension costs is being addressed by raising the retirement age( it will have to be raised further). What isn’t being tackled is the massive rise in welfare costs for people of working age. Housing benefit, WFTC and a range of other entitlements that raise people’s living standards above what they can or are willing to earn for themselves are unsustainable.
The same entitlements problem is affecting most developed countries with forecast population falls exacerbating the issue in countries like Italy, Japan , China or S Korea.
Ideally, defence should be agreed by all parties and ring fenced to deliver the forces judged necessary. Without that, it will always be vulnerable to politicians needing to cut expenditure but unwilling to upset the voters.

@PeterS

I cannot be bothered to argue with your completely mistsken analysis – exept to point out that 13 years of Conservative policies of tax, borrow and spend have brought us to the brink of bankruptcy as a nation

Only the skill of the Treasury’s Debt Management Office at persuading the debt markets to provide short term day-to-day finance is keeping us afloat; Britain’s foreign currency reserves are minimal at about £250 million. Having to finance the interest payments on a national debt of £2.4 TRILLION is bleeding us white at roughly £80 billion a year. Whose fault is this? Gordon Brown’s? Goodnight

I think a lot of people would disagree with you that have lived under labour governments in the last 60 years. Next thing you will trot out is thatcher closed all the pits when in truth labour closed far more pits that she ever did.
Sorry, also but your analysis here is basic to the point of ridiculous.

Are you seriously arguing that governments begin their terms with a net zero budget deficit? Of course not. So blaming the Tories for the 10% budget deficit they inherited from Labour is simply not sensible. It is terrible economics, below that of a GCSE student and it is misleading to the point of lying.

You would be better of saying how much each government has increased or decreased the budget deficit. At which point the numbers look pretty unfavourable to labour, who have never managed to leave government with a smaller deficit than they started with barring the ’46 post war government (and that was mostly due to the end of massive deficit spending to finance the war

In fairness to Starmer, he became an MP fairly recently while the Labour party was leaning that way. He may well be the type of guy who bides his time, he’s certainly dragged the party more into the centre in his tenure. Whether that’s his true ideology or purely down to getting votes…. time will tell. I suspect the latter to be honest.

I don’t know if you listen to it but the ‘The Rest Is Politics’ podcast discussed it recently. Some will ‘stick to their principles’ while some will ‘play the long game’ and put up with the stuff they don’t like hoping that it will burn out and there will be a reaction to policies which will play to their long term views. Politics is a murky business.

The right wing zealots on here are incapable of seeing what’s right in front of them. Or that they are being fleeced by the world’s most proficient con artists.

But the left wing Nazis are all full of open eyed 20/20 vision and always know what’s best and know the truth! Wow I have to yaaaaaaaaawn at the party politic sheep who go for party politics not policies! We are right, you are wrong zzzzzzzzz……. Cheers.

I’m on about the far left of Labour, David.

Specsavers? You’re first sentence was justified, but not that comment.
I’m not rising to your bait, yet it’s fascinating that in a whole thread of scepticism about Labour and defence matters it’s me you single out. Repeatedly.

So don’t bother if that’s all you’ve got to say on the individual points I raise, nowhere here do I defend Tory cuts, I despise them.

You’re welcome.

Agreed!

It was the Labour Party that cancelled TSR2 – my dad who worked at Vickers Supermarine in South Marston at the time – came home from work – very upset at the news. Never ever going to forgive that blunder by The Labour Party & Harold Wilson & Denis Healey. Nothing has changed in Labour’s Defence policy since. TSR2 might still be in service?
I dont trust any of them – Labour or Tory – all got their snouts in the trough – look at the pay & benefits of MP’s & pensions etc. Lib Dems and the rest are an irrelevance.

very good riposte Sir! 🙏

Nah, just the usual Daniele BS dirge, with right trash troll Airborne & you licking his arse, as usual. Pathetic.

Do you wring your hands and constantly look over your shoulder?

You state ”repeatedly,” on this thread?

As to the ”points” you raise, they are generally: Cons bad at the moment but can’t trust Labour because of Corbyn or some such; Starmer worked under Corbyn, can’t be trusted; Labour cut defence – look at my spreadsheets and repeat;

You don’t really bring many balanced points to the debate when you state the same old clap trap out of context – and even when you are given context – UKDJ even wrote an article about defence spending since the end of the cold war – you give it a stern ignoring.

I wouldn’t have expected the hard left to raise its head under Gordon Brown. They had been in retreat since 1985 and were very weak and fragmented in the ‘closed vault’ they found themselves in under New Labour. The resurgence began (slowly) after the 2010 GE.

Any evidence . I understand the escorts/frigates were reduced by Labour from 2003 to ‘pay for’ another capability – the carriers. ( The 3 Dukes sold)
yes it was 23 in 2010 , but its reduced now to maybe 15 or so through ghost ships

The Defence review in 1998 by Labour for the RN was
‘The surface fleet force was reduced from 35 to 32 frigates and destroyers with the withdrawal of Batch 2 Type 22 frigates, 25 to 22 minehunters and the SSN attack submarine force was reduced from 12 to 10. ‘

The figures are widely accepted not in any way contentious. When Blair took office we had 35 escorts, which had shrunk to 23 (13xT23, 4xT22, 5xT42 and 1xT45) by the time Cameron arrived. This is 9 fewer than SDR98 stated were needed (i.e. 32, reduced by 3 from the previous 35), which tallies with your comment above. The 2004 White Paper (‘Future Capabilities’ document, p.7) clearly states that 25 destroyers/frigates and 8 SSNs (down from 32 and 10 respectively in SDR98) were now judged to be sufficient capability, along with the future Nimrod MR4A fleet reduced from 16 to 12. These totals were later revised downwards again, not least with the commitment to build 2 additional T45s being dropped in 2008.

I am certain the 4 remaining T22s would not have lasted much longer whoever had been in power after 2010, taking the total down to 19. That leaves us where we were under the Tories for several years until T23 obsolescense kicked in. A defence review was overdue by 2010 and Labour would undoubtedly have had their own which, given the state of the nation’s finances, more than likely equals more cuts. Not much different to what happened under Cameron in other words.

Its difficult to keep track of what government did what without adding your own- they would have done this – as a diversion from the really tough Tory cuts in 2010 as part of the hard line austerity they wanted for everyone.

The GFC – caused by bankers not miners -had mostly eased by 2010 so it was a lot of bad decisions have come back to bite – especially the 5 year delay on what became the T26 build ( appearing like magic just before the 2015 election) Those with longer memories can point to the Astute contract( a total mess as the development was ready to begin the design) 2 months before the 1997 election.
Another rabbit out of the hat for next year ?

Point taken. There have been deep cuts to defence under all governments since 1945 though. We cannot say with any certainty how a different government may or may not have acted at any given point but I think very few (if any) would have given us a net positive outcome.

I do not in any way condone Tory cuts. My issue is with Labour supporters who are most eager to call out the Tories but seem to be blissfully unaware of Labour’s own record when in office . . . and immediately fall for pre-election waffle clearly intended to reassure dubious potential voters. Neither have been good and we need to be adult enough to fess up and acknowledge this.

labours excuse probably is end of cold war, where the Tories were cutting back even before that happened

No, no excuse.

Biggest cut in the “modern era” was 1991 Options For Change, that was at the end of the Cold War so at that moment, seemed justified.
All cuts since have been totally unjustified and purely for money or ideological reasons.
Tory “Front Line First” in 1994, Labour “SDSR” in 97, Labour “SDSR New Chapter” in 2004, the calamitous 2010 SDSR and every one since under the Tories.
Of interest, and ignored by most, there were no more SDSRs between the Labour 2004 and the next in 2010. A long time.
But the cuts continued throughout that time, often on the quiet, but tracked by saddos like me…before the Tories came to power and made things even worse with the austerity crap.

You are right. That miserable 2004-2010 period saw the MoD in a state of quiet calamity as it struggled to balance the books and ended up resorting to ad-hoc cuts all over the place to try and stabilise the situation. Everything was hushed up, the situation not helped of course by the revolving door of defence secretaries who couldn’t get out of the place fast enough when they realised the state things were in.

Labour were also pruning back before the end of the Cold War, as evidenced by the 1966 and 1975 defence reviews. The post Cold War cuts necessary had already been made under Major. Labour had no credible excuse for further reductions in the 2000s, it was basically a case of them being unwilling to fund their own SDR due to more important (to them) priorities.

True 1966-75 took our big Aircraft carriers away HMS Eagle etc however ARK Royal went on till 1978 .

The irony being of course that although Eagle was slightly older she was a better ship than Ark Royal.

“My issue is with Labour supporters who are most eager to call out the Tories but seem to be blissfully unaware of Labour’s own record when in office . . .”

Bravo. My stance exactly. Never be silent. Never. I don’t give a **** who likes that or not, I will keep stating the facts as they happened with the previous government ALONGSIDE the current shambles that is the Conservative.

“Its difficult to keep track of what government did”

Don’t worry, I do!

Paul Cs timeline is spot on regards the numbers. And of course this swings both ways, as I keep saying, BOTH main parties are as bad ( yet I still get called a “Right Wing Zealot” see above )
The delay post 2010 regards Global Combat Ship, T26 has been disastrous, as we are seeing now.
The Escort fleet will be back to 19, as I always say, with every cut the new low becomes the benchmark to reach when new equipment comes in.
The T32 could rectify this, but I have little hope that it will survive seeming as everything Labour has said so far this last year seems to be sea blind, and focused on the Army.
Even chaps at IFR have noted this trend on Twitter, and said so.

Not convinced by Healey at all. He seems like a lightweight to me and doesn’t seem to understand the importance of the RN. Telling that Starmer didn’t see fit to give this position to a stronger member of the shadow cabinet.

Hmm, me neither, but happy to give him a chance. Talking of the dark 2004 to 2010 period, remember Gareth Ainsworth?! Jesus…He wasn’t even a full time DS.

Why ‘lightweight’? I don’t get that from reading the Wiki entry. He is an experienced politician who has broad ministerial and shadow ministerial experience.
He just does not have as big a TV profile as many other shadow cabinet members.

I’d expect a politician given a department as important as the MoD to be experienced. He was a supporter of Jeremy Corbyn and seems to be rather adept at saying a great deal about not very much at all. Labour have to prove their credentials in defence and need a highly committed SoS who will fight the MoD’s corner with the Treasury. Not sure that person is Healey but, as always, time will tell.

yep re the Jaguars – the 2004 defence review,

Agreed. I suspect the Tories took credit for an announcement which they knew was difficult to make good on and Healey is fault finding on a technicality. As they say all’s fair in love and war, and politics.

you always need a shift of government out…it’s what makes democracy more potent that authoritarian regimes…if you don’t kick em out why have democratic process…..floating voters are the protectors of democracy.

Thanks, I agree with you on the R&D and long-term positioning e.g. Gurkhas, my main question was on the urge that the Admiralty seems to have to waste 2 months sending a QE2 around the world and back again instead of taking the place of an American carrier near home.

It demonstrates the capability to deploy to an important region in the world, where tension is rising, upon which the world’s economies depend.
It coukd be the Pacific, Indian ocean, South Atlantic. Take your pick.
That is why we have a blue water navy.
On whether in a hypothetical US China war our limited assets are best placed there, or in Europe, then obviously the answer is Europe for the reasons you describe.

Our carriers exist to undertake global deployments, not to substitute for US carriers.

Yes, I agree that the QE2s are useful assets for global deployments, but in a hypothetical war the US would be able to sustain more effective operations in the Pacific whilst we took over their job keeping the Russians’ focus on the Med and Baltic

That is one approach. But carriers are for operations very distant from land air bases.

Not sure we would need a carrier in the Med – we can conduct air operations from Akrotiri and/or Gibraltar – plus from EU/NATO airbases in Europe.

As regards air operations in the Baltic – they can be mounted from the UK or any EU/European NATO airbase.

The Americans don’t seem to think so

They have a different philosophy. The US Sixth Fleet is headquartered in Naples and has an AO including the Med and the eastern halves of the North Atlantic and the Southern Atlantic.

Hi Graham. No I know the official party line is maintain the conservative spending whilst making it look like they will spend wiser. No I am contrasting that with what I am hearing on the doorstep from not one but now two separate Labour canvasers who are not echoing the party line – far from it. This is a new candidate for this by-election but the left wing of the party seem very much in control & running the campaign.

Thanks Mark. Sounds like your two canvassers are not ‘on message’ – can they really know what a Labour Government would do in a years time?

Graham I tend to chat to the grass roots of each political party when the opportunity offers itself. Just as the conservatives supported “Get Brexit Done” they also supported “Get Boris Gone” once the dust settled and before the next election. There are so many factions in parties nowadays you need to peak beneath the manifesto, in my opinion, to see the difference between what is being said and what is likely to transpire.

Capital Costs of Trident before that , even when it was still a proposal
My source was in earlier answer to similar claim ( which get stuck in Moderation as its a link.)
House of commons research briefing from 2023. When Gavin Williamson was DefSec he accidentally made the same claim, as its widely believed even in MOD, and as he was answering a commons question had to be corrected. Ill give the answer here but leave the link out

“The cost of the UK’s strategic nuclear deterrent”
However, the Ministry of Defence issued a correction on 7 December 2017 in a written statement: I wish to inform the House that an error has been identified in the answer I gave to the hon. Member for East Devon (Sir Hugo Swire) in Defence Oral Questions on 27 November 2017, Official Report, column 21, on the subject of funding defence nuclear capabilities. To clarify, the UK’s nuclear deterrent has always been funded from the Defence budget.72 ”
page 23
many other DefSec before also have said the same back to the time of Pym and Nott. Its within the Defence budget

Well well, I’ll have to look deeper into this. The CASD into core thing is oft said to be linked to Osborne in 2010 when pensions were also, so its said, put in during his creative accounting to get to 2%
Though I also hear often people saying the SIA was also added, which I’ve never believed myself. Only DI is within MoD on the SIA side.
Thanks.

Yes. Doesnt matter to me either way. As the mistaken belief often originates within MoD it might be what could be called a ‘covert influencer program’ for it to be a sacrificial goat for the other issues and the blame is put on the nasty Treasury for making us pay for it.

It seems as of this year £12.5 bill has been spent on the reactors and the Dreadnought design and construction.( including some of the contingency reserve)

But its over a number of years , so its a hefty chunk of the defence budget – during the time of its spending- but they last 30 years after that at a smaller spend per year

Thanks for that .

It seems that Israel’s Navy is only a small share of its defence budget.
Plus they get US$33 bill per year from US for military aid , which must be spent in US , and of course maybe half their procurement budget covered. Theres is also funded joint military developments
The previous submarines and the current ones under construction are mostly or partly funded by germany ( as they are built there) plus some equipment – paid by US.

The main army is mostly conscripts- but theres lots of exceptions to that so its not so universal as believed ( Arabs are excluded)

Typo . Should be $3.3 bill per year in US aid . Likely to be substantially boosted this year , maybe a one off but extr ongoing.
never clear why they should do this, as its not a threat to US or its allies territory . but its politics and isreal= jews who are influential in US politics ( and elsewhere)

The Jewish Lobby is well known.

There is also most, a need to repost this about 3-4 time a week on here. Usually it is comparison to France. This time it is Israel, which as you pointed out is even more of a daft comparison

France is a reasonable comparison. We are both former Imperial Great Powers, now major regional powers with some remaining world wide commitments, a P5 seat, and nukes.

The differences between Britain and France are the result of choices that should be kept under review. Israel is a silly comparison agreed.

Yes, that’s fair. Some here have looked more into the FRA UK split before, on sizes, but also capabilities.

Hi Daniele , good points re the IDF, especially your commentary regarding the navy. The vast majority of their forces comprise reservists + National servicemen. (I’d guess 90%) – very cheap to run a big army that way, labour costs next to zero.

Some of their army’s equipment is downright obsolescent but well maintained- M113 apcs, M109/Soltam 155mm artillery and “soft stuff” – trucks etc.

Most of their equipment remains in storage/rotated – including combat jet assets. So in effect their Opex is far smaller than appears on paper. i.e. as listed in Jane’s other defence journals.

As you point out, it’s a lot easier when your cousins in the us help funding you.

Hi Chris. I didn’t know that amount of their AF Jet assets was in storage. Surprising.

I’m actually recalling the mid 80s when the older A4 Skyhawk assets were in storage. Given their air force is smaller then beck then, I may well be wrong re the jets being in storage.

👍 Its capable and professional compared to the rabble around them.

So true Mate!