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

I am feeling very uncomfortable about the cut to aid. So very shortsighted, but benefits are long term, so the voter will not make the connection between cuts to aid and consequences in the future.

I do however fully support the increase in defence spending.

I don’t think I was ‘laughing’ at taking money from the poorest regarding overseas aid. I just think it ought to be targeted better. There have been examples in the press of some very random expenditures. I read it’s often to ‘use up’ the budget so it doesn’t get cut next time it’s allocated which has often meant a quick scramble to give it to something (anything, even daft enterprises!) around January so it’s done and dusted before the end of the yearly budget.

FriedGreenTomatoes2

^Perhaps it's worth remembering that, "if your audience doesn't laugh it's not because they are a bad audience - it's because you don't have the skills [or knowledge] to make them laugh at what you want to talk about"^

Maybe PoliticsNerd however perhaps it’s worth remembering also that people have different senses of humour.

More worrying is if the speaker glances up and sees the audience 😴😴😴

FriedGreenTomatoes2

^Perhaps it's worth remembering that, "if your audience doesn't laugh it's not because they are a bad audience - it's because you don't have the skills [or knowledge] to make them laugh at what you want to talk about"^

Maybe PoliticsNerd however perhaps it’s worth remembering also that people have different senses of humour.

But if you expect them to laugh at your "joke" you need to appeal to their sense of humour, not your own. Attacking your audience will not change their minds.

I don't find us taking money from the poorest - which means many will die and those that don't will remember - is ever likely to make me laugh.

Oh Dear.
I think Starmer has made the right decision, for whatever reason but presumably reacting to a dangerous situation, Trump's threats being the most dangerous at present.

So why do we have to have these comments:
It's not hypocrisy. It's a reluctant reaction to an extraordinary and dangerous situation. That was not the case when the Tories decided to cut aid.

The Tories had perfectly valid reasons for cutting Foreign aid at that time, and not to put money straight in their own pockets, as someone else so gracelessly said.

Silverbrooks

MaizieD

Starmer has made a diificult decision about overseas aid

I don’t think that Murphy will be approving that decision at all, Silverbrooks. On the contrary, he will be lambasting him for it and maybe, like me, he will note the utter irony of Starmer’s reference to Attlee and Bevin. Who increased public spending post WW2.

I agree and hope Murphy will in his repeated attempts to make people to understand how and why government creates money.

I should have made myself clearer in that people are claiming that Starmer is stealing Reform's ideas.

In the light of the news that the UK is suspending aid to Rwanda over support for DMC rebels, is that one of the factors taken into account in diverting funds? Since 1998, the UK has provided over £1 billion of development assistance to the country.

www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-rwanda-development-partnership-summary/9dba78ce-012e-417e-9ff3-2f31b5cf5fac

They don't seem to be ignorant of what is accepted by the rest of the world. Which countries currently run their economy in the way you would want UK to do?

Perhaps it's worth remembering that, "if your audience doesn't laugh it's not because they are a bad audience - it's because you don't have the skills [or knowledge] to make them laugh at what you want to talk about"

Maybe PoliticsNerd however perhaps it’s worth remembering also that people have different senses of humour.

Cabowich

I agree with him cutting aid so he can spend more on defence, but I so hate his hypocrisy. What a fuss he made when the Tories first decided to cut aid, and now look at him!

It's not hypocrisy. It's a reluctant reaction to an extraordinary and dangerous situation. That was not the case when the Tories decided to cut aid.

Starmer said, "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."

LizzieDrip

Cabowich

I agree with him cutting aid so he can spend more on defence, but I so hate his hypocrisy. What a fuss he made when the Tories first decided to cut aid, and now look at him!

The world has changed immeasurably since then, particularly with the arrival of Trump!

Any government worth its salt has to adapt to the situation it faces.

You are dar more succinct than I am LizzieDrip Sorry I didn't see this before I posted

MaizieD

^Starmer has made a diificult decision about overseas aid^

I don’t think that Murphy will be approving that decision at all, Silverbrooks. On the contrary, he will be lambasting him for it and maybe, like me, he will note the utter irony of Starmer’s reference to Attlee and Bevin. Who increased public spending post WW2.

I agree and hope Murphy will in his repeated attempts to make people to understand how and why government creates money.

I should have made myself clearer in that people are claiming that Starmer is stealing Reform's ideas.

In the light of the news that the UK is suspending aid to Rwanda over support for DMC rebels, is that one of the factors taken into account in diverting funds? Since 1998, the UK has provided over £1 billion of development assistance to the country.

www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-rwanda-development-partnership-summary/9dba78ce-012e-417e-9ff3-2f31b5cf5fac

Cabowich

I agree with him cutting aid so he can spend more on defence, but I so hate his hypocrisy. What a fuss he made when the Tories first decided to cut aid, and now look at him!

The issue is that cuts in aid by far-right Tories tend to go straight in their own pockets. That is far from why it is happening now.

This government has been left to deal with recruitment challenges across its armed forces. Commitments to increasing its defence spending to meet NATO commitments not going forward because of budget constraints and competing domestic priorities which havent been dealt with, and a changing global security landscape.

UK armed forces remain engaged in various international missions and operations, ranging from peacekeeping to counter-terrorism efforts. There has been ongoing public and political debate regarding the adequacy of resources, morale among troops, and veterans' support.

None of dealing with the situation left by the last Government and their inabilities makes Starmer a hypocrite. It does tell us a great deal about the ever diminishing Tory Party however.

Cabowich

I agree with him cutting aid so he can spend more on defence, but I so hate his hypocrisy. What a fuss he made when the Tories first decided to cut aid, and now look at him!

The world has changed immeasurably since then, particularly with the arrival of Trump!

Any government worth its salt has to adapt to the situation it faces.

FriedGreenTomatoes2

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

There is nothing funny in what is happening FriedGreenTomatoes2. We are having to reduce our soft power which stores up higher future costs and people will die.

Starmer said "I want to be clear to the House that this is not an announcement that I am happy to make." I think many understand that but obviously, not all.

Perhaps it's worth remembering that, "if your audience doesn't laugh it's not because they are a bad audience - it's because you don't have the skills [or knowledge] to make them laugh at what you want to talk about"

They will have such advice available. Whether they take it is questionable on the evidence so far.

Surely (one would think) that Starmer and Reeves are taking fiscal advice from learned economists?

Cabowich he’d just intone that ‘these are difficult and different times’. Covers all bases and deflects criticism!

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

I suppose MaizieD that Rachel Reeves has the same mindset economically as Maggie Thatcher? The prudence in ‘housekeeping’ ie only spending ‘what we have, as any housewife can tell you?’.

Cabowich

I agree with him cutting aid so he can spend more on defence, but I so hate his hypocrisy. What a fuss he made when the Tories first decided to cut aid, and now look at him!

I just hate his profound economic ignorance (and likewise his chancellor’s equal ignorance) 😆

Starmer has made a diificult decision about overseas aid

I don’t think that Murphy will be approving that decision at all, Silverbrooks. On the contrary, he will be lambasting him for it and maybe, like me, he will note the utter irony of Starmer’s reference to Attlee and Bevin. Who increased public spending post WW2.

I agree with him cutting aid so he can spend more on defence, but I so hate his hypocrisy. What a fuss he made when the Tories first decided to cut aid, and now look at him!

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…

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! 😂

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

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.

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.