Give new recruits £10,000 to join army, says Sir Ed Davey
New soldiers should be offered a £10,000 bonus to rapidly boost troop numbers to deal with an increasingly unpredictable world, the Lib Dems have said.The government should also distribute pamphlets to make sure every British home is "war-ready" and able to deal with blackouts and chaos caused by the outbreak of conflict or cyber-attacks, Lib Dem Leader Sir Ed Davey said.The Lib Dems claim the plans will "urgently" boost to the number of trained soldiers from just under 71,000 to more than 73,000.In the face of a "barbaric" Russian President Vladimir Putin and an "erratic" US President Donald Trump, Sir Ed said the UK must be better prepared.
Over the weekend, Sir Ed visited Estonia to see British troops on what he called Nato's "frontline with Russia".His visit had shown him "it is clear given the threat of a barbaric Putin and the challenge of an erratic Trump, we need to do more to make Britain war-ready," he said."War readiness also starts at home," Sir Ed added, "which is why I am calling for a public awareness campaign aimed at every home in Britain - to make sure we're all prepared for the possibility of a conflict or hostile acts such as major cyber-attacks".Under the plans, new recruits receive a £10,000 bonus after completing training and serving for two years.Former armed services personnel would be offered a £20,000 payment if they return to serve two additional years.The starting salary for new recruits to the British Army is £26,334 a year.Under a government scheme launched last November, a total of 17,000 armed forces personnel became eligible for retention payments.Aircraft engineers can get £30,000 if they sign up for a further three years, with privates and lance corporals eligible for £8,000 for four years.The proposed Lib Dem scheme would be limited to 3,000 personnel, including new recruits and re-enlistees, with its £60m cost covered by the main defence budget.The plans are drawn up with the expectation that defence spending would rise to 2.5% of national income or GDP by 2027 - as promised by Labour.The Lib Dems have called for the uplift in defence spending to be funded through an increase of the Digital Services Tax - a 2% levy on the biggest social media and tech companies, which raises about £800m a year.The Lib Dems argue the bonus scheme would "urgently increase" the number of trained UK regular soldiers up to 73,000 - from the 70,752 listed in the most recent official documents.Last month, the government set out plans for a small increase to the size of the regular army to 76,000 full-time soldiers after 2029 - although this has yet to be funded.Labour has also proposed a 20% increase in Active Reserves "when funding allows" - most likely after 2030 following an overhaul of the armed forces. The government is consulting on plans to regenerate military homes with £7bn of funding by 2025, after bringing the defence estate back under Ministry of Defence (MoD) control last year.The Conservatives have called for an increase in UK troop numbers but have not set out how many they think are needed.This week, the shadow defence secretary James Cartlidge set out plans to have military homes run by a housing association to tackle the "poor" state of accommodation and stem an exodus of troops.Nearly a third of UK troops were considering leaving the armed forces due to the standard of accommodation, the Ministry of Defence's (MoD) own survey found.
Sign up for our Politics Essential newsletter to keep up with the inner workings of Westminster and beyond.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
21 minutes ago
- The Independent
Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan nuclear sites: What was in the Iranian bases Trump bombed?
President Donald Trump announced Saturday that the U.S. struck three major Iranian nuclear sites: Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. Trump said the sites had been 'totally obliterated' while issuing a warning to Iran in an address from the White House on Saturday night. 'There will be either peace or there will be tragedy for Iran, far greater than we have witnessed over the last eight days,' Trump said. 'Remember, there are many targets left.' 'Tonight's was the most difficult of them all, by far, and perhaps the most lethal,' he added. 'But if peace does not come quickly, we will go after those other targets with precision, speed and skill, most of them can be taken out in a matter of minutes.' B-2 bombers dropped six 30,000-pound bunker buster bombs on Fordow, while U.S. submarines fired 30 Tomahawk missiles at Natanz and Isfahan, Trump revealed. Iranian officials announced there were 'no signs of contamination' following the attacks, according to the Associated Press. Iran operates more than 30 facilities that carry out different steps of the nuclear fuel cycle, many of which have been hit by the latest Israeli strikes. Here's what we know about the three major sites the U.S. hit on Saturday: The Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant is buried about 300 feet underground near the Iranian city Qom. The plant is designed to produce enriched uranium, which can be used to fuel nuclear weapons. The heavily fortified plant had an estimated 2,700 centrifuge machines, which are essential to the enrichment process. Fordow has always been the main object of international concerns regarding Iran's progress on uranium enrichment. 'The significantly increased production and accumulation of highly enriched uranium by Iran, the only non-nuclear-weapon state to produce such nuclear material, is of serious concern,' the International Atomic Energy Agency said in a May report. Natanz Nuclear Facility Natanz Nuclear Facility, located about 150 miles south of the nation's capital Tehran, is considered the country's largest uranium enrichment plant. Intelligence indicates the facility is used to build centrifuges for uranium enrichment, according to the non-profit Nuclear Threat Initiative. The plant has six above-ground buildings and three underground facilities. Two of those underground buildings can hold 50,000 centrifuges. As of October 2022, Iran had installed 4,000 advanced centrifuges in enrichment facilities across the country — a 44 percent increase from two months prior – according to the Nuclear Threat Initiative. Isfahan Nuclear Technology Center The Isfahan Nuclear Technology Center in central Iran is the nation's largest nuclear research complex. An estimated 3,000 researchers work at the center, which was built in 1984 with Chinese assistance, according to the Nuclear Threat Initiative. The facility is believed to operate three small research reactors supplied by China. It also operates a uranium conversion facility, a fuel production plant and a zirconium cladding plant — all of which play roles in the development of nuclear power plants and weapons. Israel struck the center earlier this month, but the extent of the damage ahead of the U.S. strikes is unclear, the Nuclear Threat Initiative said.
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Major Donald Trump sports ally divides opinion with his take on bombing of Iranian nuclear sites
Auburn basketball coach and loyal Donald Trump supporter Bruce Pearl has divided social media with his support of the president's bombing of Iranian nuclear sites. Trump announced US military launched a 'very successful attack' on Saturday night on three Iranian nuclear sites including the Fordo uranium enrichment plant, as Washington joined Israel's air campaign against Tehran. Trump said on social media that a 'full payload of BOMBS' was dropped on the highly-secretive, underground facility at Fordo. He then said in a televised address to the nation that the key nuclear sites belonging to 'the bully of the Middle East' had been 'completely and fully obliterated' by the attack. Pearl, a passionate Trump supporter, took to social media to heap praise on the president and America's military personnel. He wrote: 'Thank you Mr president for your strength and vision, keeping us safe. Proud of our troops! 'You did what no one has had the courage to do for far too long. You were patient and clear. Pray for Peace through prosperity in the Middle East, expand now on the AA. You prevented a War'. But fans quickly flooded his replies with divided opinions. One of those in agreement with Pearl replied to his post: 'Love me some Coach Bruce Pearl! Always appreciate courage to call it like it is.' A second posted: 'Thank you coach Pearl for always standing tall for America because it takes a strong man to have the guts to stand up for your beliefs'. A third said they 'could not have said it any better'. But not all of the replies were positive. One user who disagreed with his position told Pearl to 'stick to basketball'. Another critic commented: 'Bruce - you may want to stick to hoops. Not sure how this prevents war? More than likely the exact opposite.' It comes just days after Pearl was also thrilled to see how Trump has been handling the country's border security. 'We didn't need new laws, we just needed a president that would enforce the ones we already had! President @realDonaldTrump is making America safe again!,' he wrote on X. Pearl, who previously slammed Kamala Harris for her 'woke progressive beliefs,' expressed his support for legal immigration in November after Trump had won a second term in office. 'President Trump won big because more Americans believed he will fix Inflation, secure our border, support legal immigration, bring peace to the world through strength and put America first,' he said on X. 'I pray and I believe he will work for all Americans, uniting us as one nation under God!' The fresh US military entanglement in the Middle East comes despite Trump's promises to avoid another of his country's 'forever wars' in the region. Iran had vowed to retaliate against US forces in the region if Washington got involved. 'We have completed our very successful attack on the three Nuclear sites in Iran, including Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan,' Trump said in a post on his Truth Social platform. 'A full payload of BOMBS was dropped on the primary site, Fordow.' Trump added that 'all planes are safely on their way home. Congratulations to our great American Warriors.' Trump announced a little before 8 p.m. Saturday that the United States had dropped bombs on three nuclear sites in Iran - after on Thursday giving himself two weeks to make a decision on whether the U.S. would join Israel's war with the Islamic regime Iranian media confirmed that part of the Fordo plant as well as the Isfahan and Natanz nuclear sites were attacked. Trump spoke to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu after the attacks, while the United States also gave key ally Israel a 'heads up' before the strikes, a senior White House official said. In a second post announcing his address to the nation from the White House, Trump said that 'IRAN MUST NOW AGREE TO END THIS WAR.' He described it as a 'historic' moment for the United States, Israel and the world.
Times
an hour ago
- Times
The small boats crisis is out of control. This plan could solve it
In December 2018, Sajid Javid, then home secretary, cut short his holiday and declared a 'major incident' after 78 migrants crossed the Channel in small boats in four days. Since then six more home secretaries, and four prime ministers, have struggled with the same problem: how to stop the boats. All have failed. A record 17,000 have crossed so far this year. More than 900 crossed in a single day this month. There are some who argue that this proves, once again, that irregular migration can't be stopped and there is no point trying. This is wrong: the premise is false and the counsel unwise. Irregular migration can be controlled. There are plenty of examples of countries stopping or significantly reducing it. Australia has reduced it to almost zero: not once, but twice. It did so in 2001, and again in 2013, by shipping 'boat people' off to Nauru, a tiny Pacific island. Israel did the same in 2012 by building a fence and pushing migrants from Africa back across its border with Egypt. And, in the United States, President Trump is making a pretty good fist of it now: by strengthening border patrols and denying asylum applications at America's southern border, he has reduced encounters with irregular migrants to 12,000 in April this year, compared with 240,000 in April 2023. All these policies have three things in common: they are cruel and they violate people's rights. But they are also popular; or voters are at least prepared to put up with them if nothing else appears to work. In Australia, the 'Pacific solution' is now backed by both main parties. Trump is polling steadily on migration, even if the expansion of his deportation policy has dented support in recent weeks. None of this is lost on Nigel Farage, or his equivalents on the Continent. Seeing all else fail, voters are warming to Reform's promise to leave the European Convention on Human Rights and turn boats back at sea, using the navy if necessary. It is doubtful whether this very dangerous policy could work: you still need a place to push boats back to, and France is unlikely to be obliging. But it sounds simple and radical enough to tempt both voters and, it seems, the Conservative Party. This is a big problem for a Labour government that has promised to reduce migration but is reluctant to follow that path. Sir Keir Starmer's government desperately needs a humane, lawful, effective alternative. Is there one? More law enforcement is definitely not the answer. Close to £1 billion has been spent on boosting patrols in France; even more won't make much difference. A 'safe third-country agreement', with another faraway country that will admit and process asylum seekers, is perhaps an option. There is a version of this policy that could work, and could be lawful. The Supreme Court was clear on this, even as it scotched the previous government's half-baked Rwanda plan. But Labour criticised this policy so vehemently in opposition it would struggle to revive it now. • 1,378 migrants tried to cross the Channel in one day. France stopped 184 There is still one thing worth trying, however. It's also a safe third-country agreement, but not with Rwanda or some far-flung country. The deal the UK needs is with countries much closer to home: countries in the EU. From an agreed day onwards, the UK would agree with a group of EU countries, ideally including both France and Germany, to swiftly return almost all migrants who arrive irregularly across the Channel. This would reduce crossings to zero within a few weeks. As soon as it became clear that there was no prospect of success, the incentive to undertake a dangerous, costly journey would evaporate. After a few weeks, therefore, the number of transfers back to participating states would also fall to zero. The agreement would not be with the EU itself and would not replicate the unwieldy and unworkable system for intra-EU transfers known as the Dublin system, under which hardly anyone ever got sent anywhere. Anything that resembled this would fail — it is essential that asylum seekers do not suspect that there is a good chance of remaining in Britain anyway. Instead, it would be an ad hoc, one-off agreement with a coalition of interested EU countries, designed to ensure fast, efficient transfer for almost everyone within three or four weeks, with very occasional exceptions for people with the strongest family ties. The idea is not to turn boats around at sea. Intercepted migrants would be brought to British shores. They would be held securely and processed fairly. They would get a hearing, but unless they could present a credible other ground to remain here their claims would be declared inadmissible because there was a safe country to which they could be sent. There is no question that Germany and France — or Denmark, or Austria or the Netherlands for that matter — are safe. Their asylum systems are no worse, arguably better, than ours. Transfers would, therefore, be perfectly legal. There is an obvious question about such a deal. Why would European countries go for it? France and Germany have both had significantly higher numbers of asylum seekers per capita than the UK in recent years. They could not possibly agree to any arrangement in which the traffic was all one way. For this reason the UK would have to offer something in return: to take in, through organised legal channels, a fixed number of asylum seekers from the EU a year for the next few years: say 20,000 a year for four years, after which the scheme could be reviewed. A capped scheme similar to the Homes for Ukraine visa scheme would be set up to achieve this. This would be a good deal for Britain. Admitting 20,000 asylum seekers a year would be 30,000 less than are likely to arrive this year if nothing changes. Some would see this as an admission of failure, but a sharp reduction in numbers and, crucially, the restoration of control would quickly bring political dividends. A scheme such as this would almost entirely eliminate illegal migration. In comparison, the Darwinian lottery of the UK's current protection system, where over half of those securing it must have the strength and resources to undertake deeply hazardous journeys, is surely unsatisfactory. But what's in it for a Macron, or a Merz? Ultimately, something similar. Mainstream parties in Europe are leaching support to populists promising much more radical solutions to irregular migration. Right now, they have no policies of their own that credibly offer control. Nor are uglier ones that they are already endorsing (pushbacks at external borders from Greece to Poland, and deals with Tunisia and Libya to intercept boats and take them back before they even get there) working particularly well. This deal offers the outline of such a policy. Western European countries have every interest in showing their voters that migration can be controlled lawfully and humanely through safe third-country agreements. If they agreed this policy with Britain, EU countries would then need to invest in similar arrangements of its own, with partners it can find. For EU countries, finding (genuinely) safe third countries to transfer migrants to will be harder and will take time. But it is not impossible. Short of legalising the abuses occurring at their own borders, this is the only policy option they have. Developing this plan with the UK could quickly show that the model, control through co-operation, works. They would have a narrative and plan: two things sorely lacking right now. Like all good agreements, this one appeals to interests on both sides. It won't appeal to everyone. Participating states would be criticised from all sides: too generous for some, not generous enough for others. But if even closely allied, rights-respecting countries such as Britain and Germany cannot reach civilised migration control agreements, there is little hope for such agreements being reached anywhere. And little hope, therefore, for humane border control — meaning cruel ones will prevail. John Dalhuisen is a senior fellow at the European Stability Initiative. The ESI helped to broker the EU-Turkey deal in 2016, to address the migrant crisis caused by the Syrian civil war
