Waiting for a full spending review lost to the fear that threats will not wait: No won decisively, by more than two votes to one. The debate was urgent rather than triumphant, with voters arguing over how quickly to repair defence and who should pay for it.
The floor’s strongest No voices treated defence as a governing obligation, not a discretionary promise. “One of the first duties of government is to protect the nation,” said the most-respected case, while another reduced the demand to a question of sequencing: “Proper Defense requires long term planning.” Others called for more than 3%, better infrastructure, stronger deterrence and an end to committee-bound inaction.
The Yes side was smaller but more disciplined, arguing that a firm target before the review would be expensive symbolism. Its highest-respected case called rushing the pledge “reckless posturing” and warned against “pouring more money into a broken system without fixing how it’s spent”; another urged investment in new technology while questioning the waste built into major procurement. The two camps often talked past each other: one heard delay as dangerous weakness, the other heard haste as a threat to schools, the NHS and welfare.
That made this a familiar public-spending argument, sharpened by the Chancellor’s reversal from critic of defence policy to keeper of the purse. A Yes reply said borrowing costs and an unreformed ministry could mean “gutting schools and the NHS”, while a No voice insisted capability must be restored without “the expense of benefits or welfare cuts”. Alongside that mainstream tension came more radical demands, from welfare reductions and a 10% target to claims about communism, the IRA and a bankers’ war.
The verdict was impatient with an unfixed date, but not united on the bill, the machinery or the destination.
25 Opinions
The UK spends more than the European average share of GDP on defence already, but less than average on welfare spending to help those in most need. The endless propaganda in favour of skewing this even more should be resisted.
Proper Defense requires long term planning.
One wonders if this, and the previous government believe their own words about the dangers of the world given their complete inaction on defence.
So many important things were cut to the bone when we went through austerity, this didn't need to happen. Now, with global unrest and threats, we need to get on with upping our defence spending.
I voted no because it would appear that our defensive capabilities need attention. But this should not come at the expense of benefits or welfare cuts
The world is less safe and predictable, with Russia increasingly testing the West. A strong military makes it clear that aggression against the UK or our allies would carry an unacceptable cost. That deterrence is one of the best ways to prevent conflict in the first place.
Threats to our country and the West in general are increasing NOW. They are not going to wait until we get to 3% ,doubtful we will anyway should urgently build DEFENCES now similar to golden dome being spread out by USA.
A Chancellor change mixed with unexpected costs from wars recently means they have to. They need more time to get it right.
Labour don’t want strong Armed Forces & really fear a coup as they push this country into full blown Communism & slavery à la Fabians. Hence they support the IRA - never a Nationalist movement just extreme & hard Marxists & prosecute our troops. They will try to commit our troops to the FICs & MICs Bankers War in Ukraine leaving the UK population exposed to the 1,000s of Islamists whose lives we fund. They want to Fund Chagos treason from Defence Budget. Traitors.
Defence spending is about more than war machines. It’s historically been an incredible driver for infrastructure investment and innovation.