Well if Labour keep this up I think I’ll be voting for them at the next GE!

Interesting to hear what Starmer has to say to Trump on Thursday.

Or Trump to Starmer!
My vote’s in the bag for Labour if Starmer capitulates over the Chagos Islands.
😁

”My vote’s in the bag for Labour if Starmer capitulates over the Chagos Islands”

Oh FGT … thought it was too good to be true🙈

Don’t think that’s going to happen.

No, it’s not.

BevSec

Barleyfields

It’s always said that the first duty of a government is to look after its citizens. Starmer knows full well that most people won’t want to pay more tax for defence (yes I know a lot of you would, I wouldn’t) and you can bet your bottom dollar that Reeves has tax hikes in the pipeline as he will be fully aware, and he knows the consequences of adding to them.

That is a good post. You are absolutely spot on, the first duty of Government is to look after its own citizens. I assume that is what got Trump elected, America first?

Paying for defence is looking after a country's own citizens.

FGT2 I hope Starmer can learn from some of the mistakes made so far. He should not be afraid of a reshuffle if he thinks that is needed.
I think Wes Streeting is heading in the right direction.

Of course it is. And that duty comes before any duty to people in other countries who have been accustomed to receiving aid from the UK.

I think FGT’s Damascene conversion will be short-lived! 😄.

LizzieDrip

^”My vote’s in the bag for Labour if Starmer capitulates over the Chagos Islands”^

Oh FGT … thought it was too good to be true🙈

Don’t think that’s going to happen.

Afaik USA doesn't want any change in the Chagos Islands because of Diego Garcia? They took it all the way to the Supreme Court. DG is basically run by the US.

I'd like Islanders to be able to return - a lot - but no sure of the how's and earning a living.

Strangely enough, I saw the gransnet heading - well if Labiur keep this up … etc and immediately thought Ahhh, that has to be FGT’s response to Starmer’s statement on defence and overseas aid spending. I was right 😀

My support for Starmer is no secret on gransnet. I know this decision, like others he’s made won’t be universally popular with some Labour people. My question is where else is he to get the money from? Our military and defence has been decimated. Given the US understandable demand that Europe increases its defence budgets and the threats we face, Starmer had to increase defence

I do hope he’s beginning to convince the voting public that he’s a patriot. I know that statement can be torn apart but I remember the Corbyn years when voters told us they didn’t trust Corbyn to defend us. Neither did I.

Yeu FGT - good OP

👏👏👏 Iam

Allira

BevSec

Barleyfields

It’s always said that the first duty of a government is to look after its citizens. Starmer knows full well that most people won’t want to pay more tax for defence (yes I know a lot of you would, I wouldn’t) and you can bet your bottom dollar that Reeves has tax hikes in the pipeline as he will be fully aware, and he knows the consequences of adding to them.

That is a good post. You are absolutely spot on, the first duty of Government is to look after its own citizens. I assume that is what got Trump elected, America first?

Paying for defence is looking after a country's own citizens.

FGT2 I hope Starmer can learn from some of the mistakes made so far. He should not be afraid of a reshuffle if he thinks that is needed.
I think Wes Streeting is heading in the right direction.

Yes Allira, you are quite right.

I think whats good is that they will look carefully at the Aid budget when they make decisions - not slash the lot like Trump.

Some things will probably go thats a real shame. I had a look at the list and there are a number of items like joint agricultural research (just to pick one) in Kenya to make crops more productive - but they cant put those in front of direct humanitarian aid.
There is also a possible knock on effect that if we cut back in some areas we might have more people trying to head for the UK.

Wyllow - I agree. We are living in difficult times where least worse is the best we can hope for, beyond best intereste

I think Wes Streeting is heading in the right direction.
I agree Allira.

Strangely enough, I saw the gransnet heading - well if Labiur keep this up … etc and immediately thought Ahhh, that has to be FGT’s response to Starmer’s statement on defence and overseas aid spending. I was right 😀

Now that really did make me laugh Iam!

I’m coming back to where I always voted. I cried when John Smith died. I cried when Maggie Thatcher got in. I shook Tony Blair’s hand twice when he was elected in 1997 and he visited the hospital I worked in (Nye Bevan’s b/w photos on the walls of the corridors as it was the first NHS hospital) he had the most mega-watt smile and was so delighted to be ‘mobbed’ by staff.

And to my chagrin, I voted for Boris.
I ‘lent’ him my usual Labour vote - solely to Get Brexit Done. To be fair, he WAS the only one offering to get it past the line. In fairness, he did. But thereafter, it was disappointment all the way. Fine words butter no parsnips do they?

Never again Tories. Never again.
What’s that saying about “Fool me once” etc?

So here I am. Always a Brexiteer. I’d vote the same way tomorrow.
But no more Tory.
And no more Farage/Reform UK.

I feel I’ve ’come home’ to Labour.

Starmer you a still a boring b****ard when you get up on your hind legs. You take too long to get to the point and you love talking. You’re no orator with your adenoidal twang. Voice coaching? I’d ask for a refund mate.

But it’s actions not words that count, so keep stealing Reform’s clothes Mr. Starmer and you’ll romp the next election!

Wow! Didn’t expect that, FGT!

Anniebach

FGT you are being honest

I think FGT is always honest!

... it's just that we don't always agree with what she's being honest about...

Blimey FGT - I might need to lie down in a darkened room
I just hope your return doesn’t frighten some activists . I wept when John Smith died

I left after twelve months of Corbyn. Rejoined so I could vote Starmer. Work meant I followed him at the CPS, liked his approach and commitment
I know he doesn’t excite but after Johnson and on the face of Trump and his Muskateers, give me a calm, measured, clever, genuine individual any day

Blimey FGT - I might need to lie down in a darkened room
😁

Yes, Corbyn has a lot to answer for as he put a lot of people off his Labour Psrty instead of building on New Labour's ideals.

I do feel rather sorry for Rishi, though. Eclipsed by memories of Boris, struggling with the aftermath of Truss and everyone seems to have forgotten him.
I didn't feel sorry enough to vote for him, though.

There's surely no way they could raise the tax threshold to 20K. they don't have enough people paying enough taxes as it is ? I guess it would reduce some of the benefits bill if people got to keep more of their earnings.

That’s the hope from Reform UK RubyRoos and why I found it an attractive proposition. I’m no economist however.

RubyRoobs

There's surely no way they could raise the tax threshold to 20K. they don't have enough people paying enough taxes as it is ? I guess it would reduce some of the benefits bill if people got to keep more of their earnings.

Actually, just about everybody in the UK pays taxes. It's almost impossible not to pay tax. Even if you buy something which is zero VAT, the people who have produced what you buy will have paid all sorts of taxes. Income tax accounts for only about 25% of the Treasury's income. That's why I wrote in a previous post that one way to raise taxes is to get money circulating. Every step of the production, logistics and retail process is taxed, so the more quickly money circulates - and through the maximum number of hands - the more it's taxed.

Kier Starmers address. Please read OP and stop reporting as if he said things differently.

Let me begin by giving my word to this House that the statement was not given to the media. I will absolutely have an inquiry into that. I spoke to you, Mr Speaker, this morning. I would not be discourteous to you, the Leader of the Opposition or the House in that way. I give you that assurance from this Dispatch Box. I apologise to the Leader of the Opposition, and I will have that inquiry.

Three years since Russia launched its vile assault on Ukraine, I would like to address the international situation and the implications for Britain’s national security. In my first week as Prime Minister, I travelled to the NATO summit in Washington with a simple message: NATO and our allies could trust that this Government would fulfil Britain’s and, indeed, the Labour party’s, historic role of putting our collective security first. I spoke of my great pride in leading the party that was a founding member of NATO, the inheritor of the legacy of Clement Attlee and Ernest Bevin, who not only stood behind Winston Churchill in wartime, but won the peace by establishing the great post-war order here and abroad.

It is a proud legacy, but in a world like ours it is also a heavy one, because the historical load that we must carry to fulfil our duty is not as light as it once was. We must bend our backs across this House, because these times demand a united Britain and we must deploy all our resources to achieve security.

Mr Speaker, as a young man, I vividly remember the Berlin Wall coming down. It felt as if we were casting off the shackles of history; a continent united by freedom and democracy. If you had told me then that in my lifetime we would see Russian tanks rolling into European cities again, I would not have believed you. Yet here we are in a world where everything has changed, because three years ago that is exactly what happened.

Britain can be proud of our response. British families opened their doors to fleeing Ukrainians, with the yellow and light blue fluttering on town halls and churches the length and breadth of the country. The Conservatives in government were robust in our response. I supported that in opposition and I applaud them for it now. We have built on that, bringing our support for Ukraine to a record level this year.

We should not pretend that any of this has been easy. Working people have already felt the cost of Russian actions through rising prices and bills. None the less, one of the great lessons of our history is that instability in Europe will always wash up on our shores and that tyrants like Putin only respond to strength. Russia is a menace in our waters, in our airspace and on our streets. It has launched cyber-attacks on our NHS and—only seven years ago—a chemical weapons attack on the streets of Salisbury.

We must stand by Ukraine, because if we do not achieve a lasting peace the economic instability and the threats to our security will only grow. And so, as the nature of that conflict changes, as it has in recent weeks, it brings our response into sharper focus; a new era that we must meet—as we have so often in the past—together and with strength.

The fundamentals of British strategy are unchanged. I know that the current moment is volatile, but there is still no good reason why they cannot endure, so let me now spell out to the House exactly how we will renew them for these times. First, NATO is the bedrock of our security and will remain so. It has brought peace for 75 years. It is as important today as the day on which it was founded. Putin thought he would weaken NATO; he has achieved the exact opposite. It remains the organisation that receives the vast bulk of our defence effort in every domain, and that must continue.

Secondly, we must reject any false choice between our allies—between one side of the Atlantic and the other. That is against our history, country and party, because it is against our fundamental national interest. The US is our most important bilateral alliance. It straddles everything from nuclear technology to NATO, Five Eyes, AUKUS and beyond. It has survived countless external challenges in the past. We have fought wars together. We are the closest partners in trade, growth and security.

So this week, when I meet President Trump, I will be clear. I want this relationship to go from strength to strength. But strength in this world also depends on a new alliance with Europe. As I said in Paris last week, our commitment to European defence and security is unwavering, but now is the time to deepen it. We will find new ways to work together on our collective interests and threats, protecting our borders, bringing our companies together and seeking out new opportunities for growth.

Thirdly, we seek peace not conflict, and we believe in the power of diplomacy to deliver that end. That of course is most pressing in Ukraine. Nobody in this House or this country wants the bloodshed to continue—nobody. I have seen the devastation in Ukraine at first hand. What you see in places such as Bucha never leaves you. But for peace to endure in Ukraine and beyond, we need deterrence. I know that this House will endorse the principle of winning peace through strength, so we will continue to stand behind the people of Ukraine. We must ensure that they negotiate their future, and we will continue to put them in the strongest position for a lasting peace.

Fourthly, we must change our national security posture, because a generational challenge requires a generational response. That will demand some extremely difficult and painful choices, and through those choices, as hard as they are, we must also seek unity—a whole-society effort that will reach into the lives, the industries and the homes of the British people. I started this statement by recalling the era of Attlee and Bevin, and this year we will mark many anniversaries of that greatest generation. We must find courage in our history and courage in who we are as a nation, because courage is what our own era now demands of us. So, starting today, this Government will begin the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war. We will deliver our commitment to spend 2.5% of GDP on defence, but we will bring it forward so that we reach that level in 2027 and we will maintain that for the rest of this Parliament. Let me spell that out. That means spending £13.4 billion more on defence every year from 2027.

However, we also face enemies that are sophisticated in cyber-attacks, sabotage and even assassination, so our intelligence and security services are an increasingly vital part of protecting both us and our allies. On top of the funding of 2.5% that I have just announced, we will recognise the incredible contribution of our intelligence and security services to the defence of our nation, which means that, taken together, we will be spending 2.6% on our defence from 2027.

We must go further still. I have long argued that in the face of ongoing and generational challenges, all European allies must step up and do more for our own defence. Subject to economic and fiscal conditions, and aligned with our strategic and operational needs, we will also set a clear ambition for defence spending to rise to 3% of GDP in the next Parliament.

I want to be very clear: the nature of warfare has changed significantly. That is clear from the battlefield in Ukraine, so we must modernise and reform our capabilities as we invest. I equally want to be very clear that, like any other investment we make, we must seek value for money. That is why we are putting in place a new defence reform and efficiency plan, jointly led by my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Defence Secretary.

This investment means that the UK will strengthen its position as a leader in NATO and in the collective defence of our continent, and we should welcome that role. It is good for our national security. It is also good for this Government’s defining mission to restore growth to our economy, and we should be optimistic about what it can deliver in those terms.

But, in the short term, it can only be funded through hard choices. In this case, that means we will cut our spending on development assistance, moving from 0.5% of GNI today to 0.3% in 2027, fully funding our increased investment in defence.

I want to be clear to the House that this is not an announcement that I am happy to make. I am proud of our pioneering record on overseas development, and we will continue to play a key humanitarian role in Sudan, Ukraine and Gaza, tackling climate change and supporting multinational efforts on global health and challenges like vaccination. In recent years, the development budget was redirected towards asylum backlogs, paying for hotels, so as we are clearing that backlog at a record pace, there are efficiencies that will reduce the need to cut spending on our overseas programmes. None the less, it remains a cut, and I will not pretend otherwise. We will do everything we can to return to a world where that is not the case and to rebuild a capability on development. But at times like this, the defence and security of the British people must always come first. That is the No. 1 priority of this Government.

But it is not just about spending; our whole approach to national security must now change. We will have to ask British industry, British universities, British businesses and the British people to play a bigger part, and to use this to renew the social contract of our nation—the rights and responsibilities that we owe one another. The first test of our defence policy is of course whether it keeps our country safe, but the second should be whether it improves the conditions of the British people. Does it help provide the economic security that working people need? Because, ultimately, as Attlee and Bevin knew, that is fundamental to national security as well. We will use this investment as an opportunity. We will translate defence spending into British growth, British jobs, British skills and British innovation. We will use the full powers of the Procurement Act 2023 to rebuild our industrial base.

As the strategic defence review is well under way, and across Government we are conducting a number of other reviews relevant to national security, it is obvious that those reviews must pull together. So before the NATO summit in June we will publish a single national security strategy and bring it to this House, because, as I said earlier, that is how we must meet the threats of our age: together and with strength—a new approach to defence, a revival of our industrial base, a deepening of our alliances; the instruments of our national power brought together; creating opportunity, assuring our allies and delivering security for our country.

Mr Speaker, at moments like these in our past, Britain has stood up to be counted. It has come together. And it has demonstrated strength. That is what the security of our country needs now, and it is what this Government will deliver. I commend this statement to the House.

Starmer isn’t stealing Reform’s clothes. They don’t have any clothes and nor will anyone else if they are every let near government.

How many more times does it have to be said that Reform withdrew their election contract soon after with chair Zia Yusuf saying: the contract with the people should now be considered more as the philosophy of what the party wants to achieve rather than policy details. Addressing the problematic spending plans, Yusuf said: They don’t add up on the basis that you implement everything in there on day one from arriving in Downing Street. That was never going to be the plan.

This from the contract (which I kept a copy of)

*CRITICAL REFORMS NEEDED IN THE FIRST 100 DAYS*: Make Work Pay. Lift the Income Tax Start Point to £20,000 Per Year

I was conservative in my estlmate of how much that would have cost, taking into account only basic rate taxpayers for whom it would have been a tax cut of £1,500. But of course for high rate taxpayers, those who pay at 40%, it would have been a tax cut of £3,000 - revising the total cost to £65 billion.

Kwarteng’s Budget under Truss proposed tax cuts of £41 billion. The ensuing market chaos knocked £425bn off pension fund assets. What do you think a 65 billion tax cut would do?

But for the intervention of the Bank of England in 2022, buying up gilts, pension funds would have failed. Under Reform, the Bank of England could not have done that as Rupert Lowe wants to abolish Quantitative Easing and recently proposed a bill to do that. Under Reform, millions of people would have lost their pensions and so much more.

Watch Richard Murphy explain:

www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2025/01/15/reform-wants-to-destroy-the-uk-economy/

Starmer has made a diificult decision about overseas aid that he wouldn’t have to make if there wasn’t a madman in the White House (that Farage worships at the feet of). But at least until the mid-terms, heads of governments have got to deal with the challenges he is presenting. As always, the poorest in the world will suffer.

Blimey PoliticsNerd you certainly know how kill a somewhat ‘fun thread’. I bet you’re fun at parties! Could you not see my thread was delivered in a lighthearted manner?

My fault too - I ought to have put it under ‘Chat’ 😂

we will be spending 2.6% on our defence from 2027.
and

we will cut our spending on development assistance, moving from 0.5% of GNI today to 0.3% in 2027, fully funding our increased investment in defence

That pretty much sums up in a nutshell what I referenced surely?

Trip me up if it makes you feel better, but the premis of my OP still stands I think! 😂

Fourthly, we must change our national security posture, because a generational challenge requires a generational response. That will demand some extremely difficult and painful choices, and through those choices, as hard as they are, we must also seek unity—a whole-society effort that will reach into the lives, the industries and the homes of the British people. I started this statement by recalling the era of Attlee and Bevin, and this year we will mark many anniversaries of that greatest generation

Starmer and his chancellor should take the Attlee/ Bevan example a bit further. They did not rebuild and nationalise and set the foundations for three decades of growing equality and fairer distribution of the nation’s wealth post WW2 by cutting state spending

Yet that is what is being planned in order to increase defence spending. It is utterly stupid…