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
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
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.
One of the first duties of government is to protect the nation. The current Chancellor resigned from his previous post over this, and is now holding the purse strings and failing to address what he resigned over. Is this a case of pure hypocrisy, or was his partly performative to undermine Starmer and Reeves, helping pave the way for the crowning of Burnham.
Absolutely. Nature of warfare has changed dramatically; we need to invest in new technologies. Anyway, many big capital defence projects suffer massive cost overruns, design failings, delays.. There’s also concern about motivating volunteers to enlist. People have more media access & are cynical about a call of patriotism from politicians (safely, with family members) kept away from front line danger! Similarly the wealthy - some of them benefiting from investments in war
With the wast waste UK budget is, it should be eas task to find required cuts to find out the money for the pledge.
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.