We need an open debate about how much these pensions are costing the taxpayer, otherwise our children and grandchildren – probably on far less generous pension schemes themselves – will pay the price for £1.4 trillion worth of political convenience today.
However imperfect defence policy is, despite the shrinking budgets and the reduced numbers, the majority of the British people recognise the debt they owe to the men and women of the Armed Forces, both present and past.
We should ask how we might find common ground and shared ideals that unite disparate communities and create the means for increasing societal resilience against those forces that seek to divide.
Most of Labour’s ‘increase’ is either wholly unfunded, or is the rebadging of other non-Defence spending that will not buy a single bullet, but which will be cynically used to make the amount we spend on the military look far bigger than it really is.
The conservative temperament is not hostile to change, but wary of reckless change; not opposed to ambition, but mistrustful of schemes that uproot without regard for what has been built before.
Security policy is delivered by soldiers in those boots on the ground, by pilots in those planes in the skies, as well as by sailors and submariners – and we have simply too few.
I urge the Government to reject any external interference, honour our covenant with the armed forces, and reaffirm its commitment to those who protected the United Kingdom.
If such capacity was completely new, Ukrainian firms would benefit from a secure alternative base, away from the bombing threat – and any order could be doubled up to include the British military, which would gain rapid access to affordable battle-winning kit.
While our nation faces the gravest Armed Forces recruitment crises in recent memory, a Debt-for-Service initiative would address two crises head-on.
We Europeans must be ready stand alone against the threat of tyranny and military aggression – but it will take years or even decade to replicate US military capability in Europe.
Fundamentally, it’s all about giving greater priority to military risk over ‘civil’ risk (health and safety, risk of judicial review etc). It’s not about being cavalier – just taking proportionate steps to boost our deterrence, rather than being bogged down in bureaucracy.
Foreign adventures are always useful for governments unpopular at home, providing opportunities to don a flak jacket, wrap themselves in the Union flag, and forget about dreary domestic matters.
The idea that the UK must choose between defence and development is a false choice. Both are essential to Britain’s long-term security, prosperity, and global standing.
By three to one, our panel took the view that “Britain cannot spend enough on defence without cutting public services or welfare”. But what would they cut?
Neither end of our country’s TikTok-zoomer spectrum is prepared to stand up and serve their nation like our forefathers, and not only is that a betrayal of shared values and history, but it is also extremely depressing.