Starmer couldn't be clearer: Britain must prepare for war
Clement Attlee was the Labour prime minister credited with creating the welfare state.
On Monday, at a shipbuilding yard in Glasgow, Sir Keir Starmer presented himself as a Labour prime minister who wants to be credited with turning the UK into a warfare-ready state, as he spoke of the need for the UK to be prepared for the possibility of war at the launch of his government's Strategic Defence Review.
The rhetoric couldn't be clearer: Britain is on a wartime footing.
The UK's armed forces must move to "war-fighting readiness" over the coming years, the UK faces a "more serious and immediate" threat than anytime since the Cold War, and "every citizen must play their part".
The prime minister promised to fulfil the recommendations of the 10-year strategic defence plan, which will be published in full on Monday afternoon.
But what he refused to do was explain when he would deliver on spending 3% of GDP on defence - the commitment necessary to deliver the recommendations in the Strategic Defence Review.
8:36
PM is sticking plasters over wounds
His refusal to do so blunts his argument. On the one hand, the prime minister insists there is no greater necessity than protecting citizens, while on the other hand, he says his ability to deliver 3% of spending on defence is "subject to economic and fiscal conditions".
This is a prime minister who promised an end to "sticking plaster politics", who promised to take difficult decisions in the interest of the country.
One of those difficult decisions could well be deciding, if necessary, to cut other budgets in order to find the 3% needed for defence spending.
Instead, the prime minister is sticking plasters over wounds.
After voters lashed out at Labour in the local elections, the Starmer government announced it was going to look again at the cut to pensioners' winter fuel allowance.
There is an expectation, too, that Sir Keir is planning to lift the two-child cap on benefits. Refusing to lift the cap was one of his hard choices going into the election, but now he is looking soft on it.
2:15
What choices is Starmer prepared to make?
That's why I asked him on Monday what the choices are that he's going to make as prime minister. Is his choice properly-funded defence, or is it to reverse winter fuel cuts, or lift the two-child benefit cap?
If he needs to be the prime minister creating the warfare state, can he also deliver what voters and his own MPs want when it comes to the welfare state?
To hit the 3% target, Sir Keir would have to find an extra £13bn. That's difficult to find, and especially difficult when the government is reversing on difficult decisions its made on cuts.
For now, the prime minister doesn't want to answer the question about the choices he's perhaps going to make. But if he is really clear-eyed about the security threat and what is required for the UK to become ready for war, it is question he is going to have to answer.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mirror
13 minutes ago
- Daily Mirror
Nuke veterans "ghosted" by Keir Starmer as blood scandal grows
The Prime Minister has ignored requests to meet victims, even as the scandal is reported to the police Nuclear veterans have accused the government of 'ghosting' them after the Prime Minister ignored requests to hear about the Nuked Blood Scandal. In Opposition, Keir Starmer was the first party leader to meet survivors of the Cold War bomb tests, and told them: 'The country owes you a huge debt of honour. Your campaign is our campaign.' In 2022 his shadow cabinet demanded compensation from the Tories, but Labour support withered after hard evidence emerged troops were deliberately exposed to radiation while being monitored by weapon scientists. The Mirror 's investigation has since uncovered evidence thousands of men from all three armed forces were subject to blood tests for more than a decade, and the results are now missing from medical files. Commonwealth troops and indigenous people were also monitored. Campaign group Labrats wrote to the PM last July, requesting a meeting to find a cheap and rapid route to justice for the 2,000 veterans still alive and who have an average age of 86, but 316 days later have still received no reply. In the meantime a £5bn civil lawsuit has been launched and a complaint of criminal misconduct in public office lodged with the Metropolitan Police, which is now being assessed. Both could lead to years of expensive court action. Steve Purse, whose dad was at a series of toxic plutonium experiments in the Australian Outback in 1963 and was later born with never-before-seen genetic conditions, was one of those who won the PM's support in Opposition. He said: 'Now we have seen details of the Strategic Defence Review which sees the UK repurpose its nuclear deterrent from defensive to offensive, why doesn't the government honour those brave servicemen who gave us 70 years of nuclear protection? 'I met the PM and Defence Secretary, and we talked, and I believed they were the right people to help us achieve justice. Now, they're ghosting us. I'd say to them 'do the right thing, I'll come to London any time to meet you and discuss it.' It comes as a video detailing Labour's broken Opposition promises to the veterans has gone viral on social media, gathering 1.3million views and showing deputy PM Angela Rayner and Mr Healey demanding compensation. Armed Forces Minister Luke Pollard is also seen, as shadow minister, saying it was 'really dumb' for the Tories not to have paid out. Cabinet minister says treatment of nuclear veterans is a 'national shame' Labrats founder Alan Owen said: 'It's ridiculous that a government facing long and expensive legal cases that would make it look very bad is being offered the chance of a cheap, quick fix that would cover them in glory, in under a year, and they don't want to hear what it is. 'The veterans have no wish to bankrupt the MoD at a critical time for defence spending, but this government should not wield the nuclear deterrent without remembering what happened to the troops that created it.' A spokesman for the MoD said that since entering power, Labour had widened the nuclear medal criteria and launched an archives review. "The government is committed to working with veterans and listening to their concerns,' he said. "Defence Ministers and officials remain committed to engaging with veterans' groups on this important matter and have already met with Labrats and other veterans' group since coming into office."
Sky News
23 minutes ago
- Sky News
The big problem facing UK as deadline to finalise US trade deal looms
When push comes to shove, the question of whether British industry faces crippling tariffs on exports to the US or enjoys a unique opportunity to grow may come back to three seemingly random words: "melted and poured". To see why, let's begin by recapping where we are at present in the soap opera of US trade policy. Donald Trump has just doubled the extra tariffs charged on imports of steel and aluminium into the US from 25% to 50%. In essence, this would turn a painfully high tariff into something closer to an insurmountable economic wall (remember during the Cold War, the Iron Curtain equated to an effective tariff rate of just under 50%). Anyway, the good news for UK steel producers is that they have been spared the 50% rate and will, for the time being, only have to pay the 25% rate. But there is a sting in the tail: that stay of execution will only last until 9 July - on the basis of President Trump's most recent pronouncements. 1:00 For anyone following these events from the corner of their eyes, this might all sound a little odd. After all, didn't Sir Keir Starmer announce only a few weeks ago that British steel and aluminium makers would be able to enjoy not 25% but 0% tariffs with America, thanks to his bold new trade agreement with the US? Well, yes. But the prime minister wasn't being entirely clear about what that meant in practice. Because the reality is that every trade agreement works more or less as follows: politicians negotiate a "heads of terms" agreement - a vague set of principles and red lines. There then follows a period of horse-trading and negotiation to nail down the actual details and turn it into a black and white piece of law. In this case, when the PM and president made their big announcement 28 days ago, they had only agreed on the "heads of terms". The small print was yet to be completed. Right now, we are still in the horse-trading phase. Negotiators from the UK and the US are meeting routinely to try and nail down the small print. And that process is taking longer than many had expected. To see why, it's worth drilling a little bit into the details. The trade deal committed to allowing some cars to pass into the US at a 10% rate and to protecting some pharmaceutical trade, as well as allowing some steel and aluminium into the US at a zero tariff rate. When it comes to cars, there are some nuances about which kind of cars the deal covers. Something similar goes for pharmaceuticals. Things get even knottier when you drill into the detail on steel. 2:13 You see, one of the things the White House is nervous about is the prospect that Britain might become a kind of assembly point for steel from other countries around the world - that you could just ship some steel to Britain, get it pressed or rolled or worked over and then sent across to the US with those 0% tariffs. So the US negotiators are insisting that only steel that is "melted and poured" in the UK (in other words, smelted in a furnace) is covered by the trade deal. That's fine for some producers but not for others. One of Britain's biggest steel exporters is Tata Steel, which makes a lot of steel that gets turned into tin cans you find on American supermarket shelves (not to mention piping used by the oil trade). Up until recently, that steel was indeed "melted and poured" from the blast furnaces at Port Talbot. But Tata shut down those blast furnaces last year, intending to replace them with cleaner electric arc furnaces. And in the intervening period, it's importing raw steel instead from the Netherlands and India and then running it through its mills. Or consider the situation at British Steel. There in Scunthorpe they are melting and pouring the steel from iron made in their blast furnaces - but now ponder this. While the company has been semi-nationalised by the government, it is still technically a Chinese business, owned by Jingye. In other words, its steel might technically count as benefiting China - which is something the White House is even more sensitive about. 👉 Tap here to follow Politics at Jack and Anne's wherever you get your podcasts 👈 You see how this is all suddenly becoming a bit more complicated than it might at first have looked? This helps to explain why the negotiations are taking longer than expected. But this brings us to the big problem. The White House has indicated that Britain will only be spared that 50% tariff rate provided the trade deal is finalised by 9 July. That gives the negotiators another month and a bit. That might sound like a lot, but now consider that that would be one of the fastest announcement-to-completion rates ever achieved in any trade negotiations in modern history. There's no guarantee Britain will actually get this deal done in time for that deadline - though insiders tell me they think they could be able to finalise it in a piecemeal fashion: the cars one week, steel another, pharmaceuticals another. Either way, the heat is on. Just when you thought Britain was in the safe zone, it stands on the edge of jeopardy all over again.
BBC News
35 minutes ago
- BBC News
Wales' papers: Grandparents on trial and cat flap burglar
Copyright 2025 BBC. All rights reserved. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
