Prime Minister Keir Starmer has warned that the use of trade tariffs against allied nations is “completely wrong”, after US President Donald Trump said he would impose sweeping import taxes on countries opposing his proposal for the United States to acquire Greenland, according to Downing Street.
President Trump has said the United States requires the “complete and total purchase” of Greenland for security reasons, with the White House stating that the territory is essential to both American and global security. On Saturday, he announced plans to introduce a 10 percent tariff on imports from the United Kingdom, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the Netherlands and Finland by 1 February, rising to 25 percent by 1 June.
Addressing the nation, Starmer sought to balance continued engagement with Washington alongside a firm defence of allied sovereignty and international norms. He said that while circumstances change, the values guiding UK foreign policy do not.
“What matters most is being clear about the values and the interests that guide us even as circumstances change,” he said. “Our values were not improvised. They were built patiently over time, and while we are pragmatic in how we pursue our interests, we are resolute in defending those values when it matters.”
The prime minister underlined the depth of the UK–US relationship, describing it as central to national security, economic stability and prosperity. He said that under President Trump, as with previous administrations, the government remained determined to keep the relationship constructive and focused on tangible outcomes.
“We have seen significant US investment into the UK economy running into hundreds of billions of pounds supporting growth, skills and jobs right across the country,” Starmer said. “Our cooperation on defence, nuclear capability and intelligence remains as close and effective as anywhere in the world, keeping Britain safe in an increasingly dangerous environment.”
He added that sustained diplomatic engagement had already delivered results in key industrial sectors.
“We have secured good trading terms in cars, steel, aerospace and life sciences, protecting British jobs and manufacturers,” he said, stressing that regular direct contact with the White House and senior US officials remained essential.
Turning to Greenland, Starmer acknowledged the growing strategic importance of the Arctic as climate change reshapes global geography and competition intensifies in the High North. He said this would require increased investment and stronger collective defence through NATO, with the United States playing a central role.
“The security of Greenland matters, and it will matter more as sea routes open and strategic competition intensifies,” he said. “The high north will require greater attention, greater investment and stronger collective defence.”
However, the prime minister drew a clear line on sovereignty, stating that decisions over Greenland’s future could not be imposed externally.
“Any decision about the future status of Greenland belongs to the people of Greenland and the Kingdom of Denmark alone,” he said. “That right is fundamental, and we support it.”
Starmer described Denmark as a close NATO ally that has repeatedly stood alongside the UK, including at significant human cost in recent conflicts, and said alliances endure through respect and partnership rather than coercion.
“That is why I said the use of tariffs against allies is completely wrong,” he said. “It is not the right way to resolve differences within an alliance, nor is it helpful to frame efforts to strengthen Greenland’s security as justification for economic pressure.” He warned that such measures would directly harm working people in the UK. “Such measures hurt British workers, British businesses and the British economy,” Starmer said, adding that a trade war would serve no nation’s interests.
The prime minister confirmed that he had spoken with President Trump, European leaders and the NATO Secretary General in an effort to pursue a solution grounded in dialogue.
“My job is always to act in the UK’s national interest,” he said. “That is why I spoke yesterday to President Trump, to European leaders and to the Secretary General of NATO to find a solution rooted in partnership, facts and mutual respect.”
Starmer also addressed wider international crises, saying the government strongly supported efforts to secure a ceasefire in Gaza and remained open to constructive engagement on Ukraine. He said the UK recognised President Trump’s role in pushing diplomatic processes forward and would continue working with allies to apply pressure on Russia. “We will work closely with the United States, Ukraine and our other allies to apply pressure where it belongs, on Putin,” he said. Linking global events to domestic impacts, Starmer argued that geopolitics directly affects everyday life in the UK, shaping energy prices, food costs and job security.
“Geopolitics is not something that happens somewhere else,” he said. “When war drives up fuel prices, it’s households who feel it first. When supply chains fracture, it’s small businesses and working people who absorb the shock.” He said the government’s approach was rooted in active engagement at home and abroad, combining economic stability with strong alliances and adherence to international law.
“Being pragmatic does not mean being passive. A partnership does not mean abandoning principle,” Starmer said.
Concluding his address, the prime minister called for national unity and rejected what he described as performative politics, arguing that gestures and slogans do little to protect jobs or security. “We will work with our allies in Europe, across NATO and with the United States,” he said. “We will keep dialogue open, defend international law, and use the full strength of government to protect the security, living standards and future of the British people.”
Trumpton is fast becoming a Pariah State and If It continues down this path, will soon tear Itself apart.
I’m confused by Trump going on about the Russian threat to Greenland and the Arctic, whilst over in Ukraine, he says Russia and his best friend forever Putin is a lovely cuddly misunderstood peace-loving poor little victim and deserves at least half of Ukraine. So is Russia his friend or his foe?
He is a russian asset. He is doing putin a favour by breaking up NATO whilst at the same time eyeing up his own wealth from minerals found in Greenland. A 2 for the price of 1 in trumps tiny mind. This has got nothing at all to do with defence of Greenland.
The US has a base in Greenland and is free to reinforce it. The whole Russia /china threat is just a smoke screen to play on MAGA supporters. It’s all about the rare earth minerals.
Starmer is a full blown Chinese asset
Umm evidence?
How’s life in Moscow? Johninmk doing well?
Hopefully after a few more super sized big mac meals this will all be over.
JD Vance is next in line, a sobering thought. Hopefully the midterm elections will tip the balance of power, but November seems a long way off.
Quite frankly I’m not sure vance would be worse.. yep he is on the extreme Christian right, but fundamentally he’s a isolationist.. maybe we are in a place where the best outcome is if the US just becomes isolationist and just leaves European alone.. last year I could consider that worst case.. now I’m thinking it may be the best we can hope for.
Well you see, the US government is in the Kremlins Pocket. So if the US invades Greenland Russia will gain control of Greenland, so the US has to invade Greenland to prevent Russia getting control of Greenland. It’s simple!
Thanks for the chuckle Dern in what is otherwise a grim comments page.
Cheers CR
I think it’s fair to say that he is enamoured with and sympathetic to Putin. He hates the EU and NATO. Is the chaos he causes a result of simple egomania and infantile tantrums? Or is there something deeper, more calculated going on? His actions seem to conform with the ‘Simple Sabotage Field Manual’ which the US Office of Strategic Services produced in 1944 and distributed in occupied Europe (on how to create maximum damage / sabotage without getting found out – declassified by the CIA in 2008). Basically, you create chaos, promote bad people, make stupid, wasteful decisions, etc. The US voted him in knowing exactly who he was. He is the monster they chose to fight a bigger monster in their eyes… the ‘decadence’ ‘wokism’ and ‘declinism’ of America. I’ve always thought that he intends to close NATO down before the end of his second term. Maybe he is just a very angry person and there is no overall plan, apart from self-enrichment?
We need a red line on any dependence on US kit or support as well. Starting with how to maintain a truly independent nuclear deterrant. That is the the biggest contribution we could make to European defence.
The US is done and should never be trusted again. Their constitution is weak and leaves them wide open to a lone lunatic having to much power.
I agree, Trump is likely the start not the end of the process that will see the US political class transformed back to a pre 1941 state. That pre 1941 state was neither a friend nor much of an ally. JD Vance has already made a play to remove UK nuclear weapons.
The UK should take development of a completely independent deterrent as the number one national priority.
That means an initial development of a tactical nuclear cruise missile based on storm shadow. The rapid development of a nuclear capable MMRB based on Night fall and the longer term development an SLBM to replace trident D5.
We can probably use the new Astraea warhead for a cruise missile, MRBM and SLBM as it’s fairly light weight and provides a dial-able yield between 90kt and 500kt and we can probably keep our current Chevaline warheads longer instead of disposing of them as we build the Astraea warheads allowing us to move up to 500 warheads by the middle of the next decade.
If France follows suit then ENATO can have 1000 deployed warheads which is a very respectable amount compared to Russia, China and the USA.
Beyond that we need to deploy two infrared tracking satellites in a highly elliptical orbit like the French have. SSTL have already deployed infra red satellites like this just not in HEO orbit so we can do this quickly and cheaply as part of ISTARI. This allows us to determine a ICBM lunch location and it’s the main early warning aspect we rely on the USA for at present in a nuclear exchange. (Which is why France has its own)
ENATO has massive conventional forces and there is almost nothing the UK can do at scale on land to add much to that. What ENATO desperately needs is a power that can in part replace the US nuclear capability. The UK is the only country that can do that without ripping up the NPT or turning the EU into a nuclear state. We need to expand tactical nuclear sharing to Poland and Sweden to stop them going nuclear.
France is part of EU…ohhh…and nuclear. But i do agree. An inventory of nuclear cruise missiles would ensure independence and options.
I agree I think a fully sovereign nuclear deterrent is probably now a fundamental requirement for UK security.
If things got really bad quickly I would hope we could learn a lot from taking a close look at the Trident missile, assuming we haven’t already. The Trident is a 6,500 nm missile with a reduced payload (4x instead of 8x warheads) and 4,700nm with full load according to Wikipedia. Is there any reason why a UK SLBM couldn’t be launched from land as well as subs? Would allow one missile to be designed and built quickly..? A compromise sure, but… Given our woes with our subs at the moment and how long it might take to sort the issues out a land launch option would be a good idea I would have thought.
Cheers CR
You would have to launch an SLBM from a silo and the UK is too small and dense for Silos.
How about a tube fitted to the back of a truck, e la Russian mobile ICBM’s. Security might be an issue given how crowded our islands are. Land based weapons would rely on effective early warning in order to be able to meet the second strike mission which would apply to silo or mobile systems. Fact is space for land based missiles is going to be an issue in the UK and SLBM’s need subs, which are expensive and difficult to build quickly…
Not a nice place for us to be in…
Cheers CR
If only we had a large empty area of land that is sparsely populated and out of the public eye. Somewhere maybe with lots of Penguins and sheep?
🙂 Would need a bloody big missile to reach anywhere, if you are referring to the place I think you are..? 🙂
Cheers CR
The EU may never be nuclear. Countries, perhaps. Anyway, the security architecture will change a lot. USA is no longer commited. So wether we like it or not, this topic will move on I guess and it will over a long period of time. Sweedish, Polish and German resolve are quietly growing. Pushed into a corner, such as they are now, they will do what they must do. This is the Pandora box created by Mr Trump. An the anger will not go back in its box. That was not a smart move. Not at all. They will do so for all sorts of reason: pride, fear, honor, greed, status. You can pick the one you want. Gloves are off. Letting a senile moron in the White House was really a bad idea. Now humanity will be less ans less stable. Whatever USA say, it is now too late to rebuild this broken trust. They won’t say it openly, they may not be hostile, they will just do what they must. They could even do it just because they don’t like the idea of the French being the one that stand form to this bullying while they could not for various reasons. This is something new.
Surely their legislators are looking at the events of the past year and considering future bills to curtail the President’s power? It just seems crazy what he can do unilaterally. There is a complete lack of accountability.
Any pivot away from our existing CASD will take a very long time, certainly far longer than this administration lasts. The most likely option is air launched, perhaps on Tempest, but even that would be 15 years away. It would take a significant increase in budget too.
No the Democrats are being absolutely spineless, and probably don’t want to curtail Presidential power because they’re working of the assumption that it’ll soon be their turn. Because the American political system is effectively a two party strangle hold the Dems are used to working hand in hand with the Republicans in a “we scratch your back you scratch ours” kind of deal. They still haven’t grasped that the current Regime will eventually get to a place that locks them out completely.
Whilst I wouldn’t disagree with your points, it also seems that the democrats are so bruised after their 2024 defeat that they have very little idea of which way to go, either in terms of leadership with real leadership quality and power or what they even stand for in the rapidly changing world which is to a large part down to Trump..! To make matters worse it seems that may democratic voters feel that the party leadership isn’t doing enough to stand up to Trump, so there is the risk that voters become disillusioned. Although, Trump might continue to motivate opposition..!
There is also Trump’s ‘plans’ to stay stay in power beyond the two term limit. An article / report from the London School of Economics suggests that it might not be entirely impossible and that an attempt should not be dismissed, especially given the shenanigans last time he lost a vote. The LSE also pointed out that the suggestions from the Trump camp about a third term might be more about avoiding becoming a lame duck administration in the final months of his second term than any real expectation of of a third term.
November will be a telling moment.
Cheers CR
Won’t happen. The constitution is something pathetically sacred to them.
And yet so many amendments!
There seem to be plenty of them willing to break or ignore the 22nd amendment, including the President himself.
The administration is stating that every act Congress passed since 1973 to restrain the president is unconstitutional. Republicans agree with him, the Supreme Court agrees with him.
They created a tyrant and thought they had a system to keep them in place but the entire system is based on the good will of the elected tyrant.
It’s impossible to change the system and the democrats support half of what he is doing especially on tariffs.
This is not a serious country to be tied to long term anymore and it’s all likely to get worse.
Yep it’s going to be a 10 year plan.. but the US could not immediately shut down our deterrent.. so we have the time..just.
I wonder what it would take for a UK government to look at a replacement or additional nuclear strike capability. I can’t see it happening unless NATO disbands.
Maybe a question for SpyintheSky but how hard would it be to go to Skyrora with an Astrea and ask if they can use their XL Launcher to hoik a few of them over the Atlantic? It’s supposed to get 315 kg into orbit after all…
The UK has a developing rocketry sector with the SaxaVord going ahead. I’m sure if Orbex or Skyrora got to have a little look at Trident they might be able to develop a missile that fits into a Dreadnought Submarine….
Yes if you look the UK pretty much has all the components it needs, And with project nightfall the UK is back in the game of military ballistic missiles and as you say we now have a budding orbital
Booster industry, which is a fundamental step.so yep. SKYRORA XL, being three stage and having a max altitude of 1000kms.thats all within the lift capability you would need a for a 5000km range IRBM, an apogee of 1000km and 315 Kgs would give you a mirv that could deliver 2 warheads or a warhead and penetrate aids..
The UK warhead is plenty light enough to be fitted to a cruise missile as well.. essentially the hard part is making a nuclear warhead small enough 100-200kg weight.. heat shield and reentry vehicles wise the UK builds them in collaboration with the US but we still know how to build them..
So no real reason why the UK could not build and IRBM for land based deterrent or even figure out a sub launched one..we do after have access to a load of SLBM we have the right to do with as we will.. and a air launched or ground launched cruise missile is well within our capabilities.. individual missile wise it not going to be up to trident.. and so we may need to go back the the triad.. but we can do it.. we could even collaborate with France to be honest as they need a new SLBM as long as any collaboration allowed for both having sovereign capacity…
It was a massive mistake to loss sovereign capability in building our own IRMBs and SLBMs and this mornings speech by the priminister really underlined that for me.. there was a huge subtext around dependence on keeping the US on side for our deterrent.
The commercial launch vehicles being developed would make very poor ICBMs. They both use liquid oxygen as propellant, meaning they cannot be pre-fuelled and ready for launch. Furthermore, they’re more complex than an ICBM needs to be, and require extensive launch infrastructure. The only real way they could be used for nuclear deterrence would be to put nukes in orbit, violating the outer space treaty and opening the door for China to do the same.
The UK should have started work on it’s own solid-fuel SLBM right around Trump 1.
What on gods earth will it take Starmer to;
1. Significantly increase the size of RN, RAF, Army
2. Order another 150 Typhoons
3. Quadruple GBAD
How many red flags does he need
Maintaining the nuclear deterrant without US support needs to be the priority, that is the one area where Russia has a dominance over Europe, if our deterrant falls apart the French alone will not be sufficient to deter Russia. In conventional terms Europe can hold its own.
That was the big thing that I got from starmers speech this morning, morning there was a massive subtext of “for the interests of the UK we have to keep the US on side” for the sake of the deterrent and preservation of the deterrent is probably the absolute driver ( because i suspect most people in the HMG are convinced Russia could possibly drop a bucket of sunshine on the UK without our deterrents).
The Uk it seems made a strategic misstep 60 years ago with the cancellation of our own IRBM programme… I think we now need our own fully sovereign nuclear deterrent… if India can do it we bloody well can.
Rmj, if the gulf between the US and the rest of the World continues in the longterm, the UK may ask for all US military units in the country to go as trust would be rock bottom. Europe could adopt the Canadian policy of not buying US military hardware and turning to more reliable suppliers. Sadly, that could see less F35s in the RAF’s fleet.
We would need a replacement for the F35 as the RN’s carriers represent 2/3 to Europe’s carrier strike capability and I have no doubt that Russia and China would se the break up of NATO as manner from heaven opportunity to extend their own empires… and domination of the world oceans will play a part in that effort and the Chinese navy will be the world’s most powerful in the not too distant future. It will count.
As a BBC reporter put it last night the Chinese and Russian leaders will be sitting watching this with a tub of popcorn..! Would have been funny if it wasn’t so chilling
Cheers CR
CR, I feel sure that the real powerhouse of America has its limits to what a sitting President can do in terms of foreign policy……well one hopes so.
One principle that makes America work is the strength of the Dollar and no one not even a self-seeking president should place it in real danger, so watch this space.
The Ramifications of Trump’s policies will hurt the US economy in so many ways as international trust in the US diminishes over time and it will take years to re-establish credibility. The loss of lucrative military contracts will shake the economy in so many states leading to the loss of jobs. Canada has made it clear, it’s going elsewhere for fighter aircraft and more will follow. I don’t believe Trump’s current actions help maintain a healthy US economy and turning on your allies with brutal tariffs everytime they disagree will have only one outcome.
Hi Maurice,
Good point about the US Dollar, especially as it is already under attack from a number of directions as competitor nations seek replace it their own currency, with China in particular pushing the Renminbi.
Trump is also ignoring a very important point. US power includes a considerable dollop of soft power based on it’s alliances, political influence very significant business relationships. It should also be remembered the Europe apparently holds a lot of US debt!
When considering the alliances, the US is also dependent on quite a few niche capabilities not just in military terms but industrially as well. Two examples, Babcock supplying VLS modules to USN, which is about industrial capacity I think, but also I read a headline that indicated that the US is buying icebreakers from Finland, which might be more about experience and expertise. These and many other interdependencies are almost inevitable in the globalised economy so much so that it has been suggested in the past that so intertwined is the modern economy that nations simply could not afford to go to war as their economies would fail. Ukraine seems to have put paid to that idea as nations have quickly adapted including use of economic levers as weapons of war. However, it does serve to illustrate the challenges posed by Trump not only to America’s allies but to America as well, as it will be hugely damaging and costly to disentangle the global system to achieve what Trump apparently wants.
Interestingly, the Republican Speaker of the House was very positive about the ‘special relationship’ in his speech to Parliament this morning suggesting that not everyone in the Republican Party is entirely on side with Trump’s actions.
Starmer’s address to the nation yesterday was also interesting as was a comment by the BBC’s Europe correspondent. Starmer has clearly decided to walk a very difficult line trying to keep Trump onside and maintain the ‘special relationship’ at all costs. I noted that his voice cracked a couple of time during the address, perhaps underlining the strain of trying to manage the relationship with Trump. I certainly wouldn’t want to have to try and do that! His efforts are recognised by the Europeans some of whom call him the Trump Whisper reportedly! I bet the House Speaker’s speech this morning came as a relief to him, espcially as he praised Starmer for his address!
As a rule I am not a fan of Starmer or of our politicians in general, but I do think Starmer must be taking on a considerable amount of pressure and not a few personal attacks from Trump on those telephone calls they have, so I do think he deserves some credit for trying to maintain good relations with the US at this time. Trump is a bully with a lot of power after all.
All of which begs the question why hasn’t the DIP been published yet. I wonder if Starmer is spending so much of his energy trying to keep Trump calm that he has little bandwidth left to deal with his own squabbling ministers! As I sense the shortsightedness of HMT trying to kill off rearmament!
It is a shambles with the growing risk of WW3 thrown into make it a potentially dangerous one at that.
CR
CR, A brilliant observation. Multi – nationalism is a bit like a compost heap; it matures over time, and occasionally it is turned and refreshed, but it’s still a compost. Trump may be nothing more than a man with a fork who messes around the pile and causes a lot of smells, yet composts being composts, quickly goes back to being a….. compost heap!
That made me chuckle, thanks…
Never before has the smell of compost meant so much to so many..!
Cheers mate
This is the true insanity of the who thing the US government and many of its MAGA followers are under a massive set of misconceptions:
1) a belief in the invincibility of the USN when that facts are within a decade the USN is in most areas going to be outnumbered 2-1 by the PLAN .
2) the fact that Europe has zero power to support the western alliance.. when infact it has 3 large carriers, 3 small carriers, 120 major surface escorts, 50 submarines.. which are bizarrely the numbers which would allow dominance over the PLAN out to the next decade.
Effectively the US is throwing almost 40% of its naval numbers away.. in complete hubris, and if it thinks it can make up the numbers from the pacific powers.. not one of those powers has a single treaty that requires them to go to war for the U.S.. they are all all next door to china and would be devastated if they did join the US in a war and have seen what the US is doing to European and are still generally livid about tariffs ( the Japanese are not forgiving the US in a hurry and I’m not sure they will go to war with china and get devastated for the US.. South Korean is trying to make nice with china)…
Hi Jonathan,
Yup, madness. Of course we both understand that it is worse than the headline numbers suggest. For starters it seems that the USN / shipbuilding industry cannot build ASW frigates. That is a huge gap, especially in light of the PLAN’s submarine building program. It would be bad enough having to fight out numbered with a balanced fleet but one with poor surface ASW capabilities and virtually no MCM capability and those magnificent US carriers start to look very vulnerable indeed. Pulling the NATO alliance apart would break the interdependencies in capabilities both military and industrial hugely weakening us all. ASW is where Europe is well equipped and would dovetail nicely into USN carrier strike groups filling the gaps.
As one BBC correspondent said in the last couple of days all Russia and China’s leaderships have to do is sit back open a tub of popcorn and watch the West tear itself apart. The really dangerous thing is that the relationship between the US and Europe has been the glue that holds Western style democracies together. If that relationship fails there is a real risk that democracy will fail as there are plenty of strong arm would be dictators around. We either stand together or fall alone. I sincerely hope someone in Europe is thinking and whispering about an alternative to NATO. We need a fall back plan and the UK needs that bloody DIP, but I sense the dead weight of HMT again..!
The only bright spot is the speech by the Republican Speaker of the House of Representatives to Parliament this morning as it shows not every Republican agrees with their President. I also think that Starmer, known as the Trump Whisper in some European quarters, deserves some credit for trying to keep things as normal as possible. I would not want his job for all the tea in China..! Thankfully, the US / UK relationship is about more than the President but this one is wielding a bloody big wrecking ball!
We need a contingency and it must include serious rearmament or we are going to be seriously vulnerable.
Cheers CR
If I recall correctly, a large portion of the F35 is already manufactured by European companies, and when we were a Tier 1 partner I believe we had access to the codebase. Along with that, and possessing multiple functioning examples, I feel there may be a more expedient solution than designing a replacement aircraft…
I believe Rolls-Royce had a proposal engine for the F35 – might be worth dusting off those blueprints…
Yeh, we might yet have to get into the reverse engineering game. F35 and Trident being the two at the top of the list. Not necessarily in that order!
Cheers CR
In regards to a SLBM, the Uk rocket sector has not been in as good a place since we foolishly binned our IRBM programme in 1960.. we have the capability to build a 3 stage, 2000mile apogee orbital booster.. we also already have the warhead tech down to building a 100kg weight strategic level hydrogen warhead and we build our own heat shields for the reentry.. essentially the UK has everything it needs to build a IRBM or SLBM.. it just needs to practice in putting it all together.
There’s also a pipeline of rocket design talent recently set up in the UK to draw upon – the UK Race 2 Space competition. So if we’re sensible and start an independent SLBM program, we should be able to build a lasting sovereign knowledge base – and perhaps share with/sell to allies (eg Norway, Sweden).
Yep very luckily the Boris focus on a UK space industry after Brexit means that we are actually in a place we can actually consider SLBM and IRBM development as possible.
I’ve said it elsewhere but there is utility in keeping a couple of US Airwings in lightly defended bases on UK soil… with a few British Army battalions an hours drive down the road. Would be nice if things degrade and we could as the USAF to kindly donate some F-35’s to the cause.
Where the money coming from? What are you suggesting we significantly cut?
Fully agree we should rearm, I just don’t see any options to do so, after the scorch earth policy the conservatives did.
Significantly cut welfare – welfare isn’t affordable or possible without defence.
Vast vast majority of people on welfare need the money. It’s only a tiny percentage that don’t, not that the likes of the daily mail ever report the true facts or full story. Just like small boat crossings is a tiny percentage of immigration and of that most successfully obtain refuge status. Cutting money for the poorest and most in need in our society is not a good solution.
Plus the majority of the welfare bill goes to the state pension and the NHS. I’ve paid more than my fair share of taxes, I don’t want my state pension cut.
Your other option is increase taxes across the higher brackets, or on corporations, but the efficacy of such a move is debatable.
One might also consider fully slashing the foreign aid budget to instead push for military spending.
Another might be to take procurement decisions out of the hands of the military and the government, and instead delegate it to some neutral third party to avoid the messy purchases of the recent times.
But, whichever way you choose, there are no good options.
Many of the pensioners I know are quite well off – Rhein river cruises don’t come cheap and SAGA is mining a rich mineral vein. I have a friend who will probably pay the proposed ‘mansion tax’, drives a new Audi A4 and has had 2 knee replacements on the NHS – private quote is around £17k per knee. Like many, he amassed generous pensions. He recognizes that it wouldn’t be unfair if he paid a bit more tax. It’s also true that the state pension is less generous than that in comparable European nations and many pensioners live close to the poverty line. The challenge is how to redistribute income to less well off pensioners and to generation Z, who have drawn the short financial straw, without losing votes. The govt strategy looks to be to retain the (so called unaffordable) pension triple lock, to introduce higher rates on council tax on higher value homes and to increase income from inheritance tax by including uncashed pension ( no pockets in a shroud) funds and closing loopholes; and encouraging better off pensioners to spend more of the wealth they are hoarding to get the economy going.
We pay for our pension from our taxes, cutting it would be unfair. Our state pension is one of the lowest in the western world so it’s not really the problem
Only option left will be a significant mix of tax rises and borrowing aimed at boosting the economy through direct investment in strategic assets – primarily defence and critical materials. We should also double down on net zero (this will not cost anything like as much, but it is the only way to energy independence in Europe and UK in the long term, even digging out gas just leaves us vulnerable to energy markets, its also more expensive now and a backward looking tech.. plus of course climate change).. Which bits of defence need money most I’d defer the experts, but if we are to have nukes they must be independent.
No. You paid for your parents’ pensions from your taxes. Yours will be paid for by the following generation, and they are increasingly pissed off about it, given that their own opportunities have been so brutally curtailed. The triple lock needs to go, pension tax relief needs to go, and inheritance tax needs to approach the level of income tax. Genuinely poor pensioners can be helped through other benefits.
Personally I think we will at some point see a means tested pension.. if you have over a specific income you don’t get the pension, not saying it’s fair but we now spend about 5% of GDP on pension when I was born we spent less than 1% on .. sorting social care out is key as well.. it’s burning many 10s of billions and taking about 25% of NHS acute bed days.. sort our social care and you would not need to keep feeding the NHS crisis money.
Basically if we are going to be brutal no state pension if you are a higher rate tax payer which would give about 10-15 billion a year now.. that would create the least misery.. it would piss 1 million people off but thems the breaks.. I would rather that than take delay the pensions until people are dead.. or take money of people on the breadline..or worse raise tax’s..
We did it for child benefit.. we can do it for pensions… there should be no state based payment that is not in some way means tested…for simplicity sake I would also just role national insurance into income tax as well..as a self employed person I of the firm belief national insurance may be the most stupid tax in existence..
Hi Jonathan,
I tend to agree with you. I would point out, however, that National Insurance was part of the 20th century social contract, so more than merely a form of tax. However, that contract needs to be refreshed and urgently.
The risk is that we destabilise our constitution as I am sure it will get roped into the debate. For me the Constitutional Monarchy enabled us to have an economic crisis, a political crisis, a change in head of state and two changes of political leader in 49 days days!
Not many countries could pull that off without real trouble – perhaps not even the US..? We kinda of just did it..! Traditional processes, some of them nearly 1000 years old just sort of kicked in and no one questioned them – thank goodness!
So I believe we have some very difficult discussions and decisions to make, but I do wonder if our leaders could pull it off?
Cheers CR
I suppose he’ll draw a red line across 10 Downing Street to prevent anyone from entering and commission a couple of drones to fight Trump and Putin. With that, they won’t dare do anything.
Have we all been looking in the wrong direction? It’s not Putin we need to worry about, but our so-called orange friend from across the pond! Just when international markets were beginning to settle down, along came another nugget from the Oval Office in the form of threats and economic chaos. The ramifications of all this on the NATO alliance are very hard to contemplate, but it could lead to a split with Scandinavian and Baltic states forming a separate bond, yet still interwining with the big four. I think Starmer can forget about the Ukrainian peace deal if the US continue on its current direction as any American assurances won’t be worth the paper they are written on.
The USA have never been a good and reliable ally, they just haven’t. Because of their position of power, they have almost always purely acted out of self interest and the rest of the world towed the line. the dynamic needs to change. Potus has spent more time bashing and threatening his allies than actually worrying about the “Chinese threat” or Russia
I liebour thought they could get away with all defence spending would be stopped and the Armed forces scraped.
That is literally the same with every post-war government in the UK. The Conservatives tried to do that for two decades. Labour tried to run a foreign war without increasing the defence budget, and added cuts of the their own.
Liebour, how old are you? 5?
Where the money coming from? What are you suggesting we significantly cut?
Fully agree we should rearm, I just don’t see any options to do so, after the scorch earth policy the conservatives did.
1/ Spend more in the UK and in countries where we have reciprocal agreements. Spend less in the US. This will bring in more money in taxes and more in exports. Then get the Treasury to increase the budget by that much.
2/ Print the money to pay for Defence (electronically of course). We printed £445bn between 2009 and 2018, a decade of stable low inflation and low interest rates. Printing money doesn’t lead to inflation – although spending it stupidly might. We could have *doubled* the spending on our conventional military capability for a decade just by foregoing last year’s and this year’s £170bn of quantitative tightning.
3/ Increase taxes where there’s inflation: so tax the asset bubbles. Some house prices are starting to fall, but there’s plenty of room for Capital Gains Tax rises and stamp duty rises on shares (maybe give some of it to the underlying companies). Right now we need to tax unearned income more than we do.
Along with a reduction in ISA allowance!!!
Assuming Trump has never looked at a globe, or a map centred on the Pacific instead of the UK…..
It’s all very well Starmer talking about red lines, international law, and the international rules-based system. But in reality, rules only work if all players abide by them — try playing chess with someone who makes up the rules as they go along. You can shout “that’s not fair” or “what about the rules?” all you want, but you ultimately lose every time.
We are now in a world of global competition with strategic stakes, with Russia taking land by force, the US threatening to do so, China biding its time to join the party, and India strengthening its military and strategic position.
Then there is the EU, which could, and arguably should, be one of these big players, but it is currently an economic power block with a lot of politics that aren’t aligned, not a military one. With the war in Ukraine and the US stance on Greenland, it may well become a proper global player with its own integrated military in the future, especially if NATO were to collapse. If these crises do not push the EU to unite and integrate further, I do not know what will.
Back to Starmer and our government, it is a lot easier (and cheaper) to be virtuous on the international stage than it is to actually prepare our country for this increasingly unstable world. So for me, he needs to rein it in a bit and find the money to increase defence spending sooner rather than later. Talking a good talk, provoking all of the above, whilst not doing anything meaningful with our armed forces is ridiculous.
As always, agree with every word.
Mark my words. The UK will lose access to the Trident missile pool soon.
That’s what I’m expecting and have done for some time. It really is a huge blackmail opportunity they will not ignore.
What would it take to reverse engineer trident as an interim measure?
No idea, it’s a tad classified 🙂
It can’t be rocket science…
If he does press us we should start dumping US Treasury bonds….
Previously there has been a lot of talk about how “Britain will always be fighting as part of NATO” or similar alliance but this shows that the assumption that NATO won’t just evaporate tomorrow and leave us high and dry to be woefully naive. We can’t keep on outsourcing large parts of our military capabilities to other countries because come crunch time they might not actually be on our side. We need to be able to stand on our own, especially as an independent country outside of the EU, and potentially NATO too.
We… Need Another Treaty Organisation.🤔
Keep calm & carry on, hoping disaster can be avoided until the mid terms. If the Dems win both houses, then you know who will be impeached.
They figured out Game Theory in the 1980s – Tit for Tat is by far the superior strategy when playing a game of collaboration vs antagonism. Always copy your ‘opponent’s’ previous move, tits for tits, tats for tats. In realpolitik for an ongoing friendly relationship, like that with say the French, you play genorously, where you give them another chance for collaboration whenever they go for betrayal, but now we’re in a game with an insatiable lunatic. It doesn’t matter if he doesn’t actually strategize, it’s down to sensible people to do that for him, and manipulate his responses through a non-generous tit for tat strategy.
We could all play hop-scotch with the number of lines that have been crossed in the last year – ONE YEAR! There is plenty to like about Starmer despite the idiots who so irrationally despise him (incidently often the same types who brought us Brexit), however he really isn’t the man for this moment. In more normal times, sure, but now we need a leader who understands positioning, signalling and power projection abroad.
We need to rejoin the Single market post-haste. That will bring a small short term GDP boost, and then an ever increasing medium term curve which would help bring the defence spending increase closer.
As others have said, securing soveriegn nuclear capability is now an exisential imperative, and that’s going to mean a persistently higher defence budget, let alone basic capabilities which are still underfunded. It’s no good to back load defence spending til the end of the decade, more now will give higher returns later.
We should also boycott the World Cup, and stop pretending America is going through a phase – messaging should be less equivocating, and begin signalling a firmly European position.
And for the next crazy thing the orange retard tries, we should probably do a shot across the bow with a limited but significant sale of US treasuries, just enough to remind them that we can cause them harm if it really came to it.
It’ll take years to untangle from US defence reliance, and their economy. That should have started yesterday.
a red line drawn in erasable crayon one assumes?