If you think the UK is bad off now, just wait till this PM is finished
The phrase ' war-fighting readiness' was chosen deliberately to grab media attention and to try and garner support from the usual gung-ho right-wing newspapers, retired army personnel and self-proclaimed British patriots who believe that the UK single-handedly defeated the Axis forces in the Second World War.
In short, in addition to responding to Donald Trump's stipulation that European countries must increase defence spending, Mr Starmer has used his announcement to broaden his electoral appeal to the xenophobic, populist right-wing voters who wrap themselves in the Union Jack and dream of past imperial glory, normally with a limited or no knowledge of relevant historical events. He even uses terminology like 'defence of the realm' and 'defence of everything we hold dear', speaking like a prime minister embarking on actual war but with the luxury of not actually being at war.
Doubtless the increases in defence will be financed at the expense of providing succour for those in need and social services in general.
The masters of war – those, as Bob Dylan said, who build the big guns and death planes – will reap massive rewards and continue to provide the Israeli government with munitions and parts to murder innocent Palestinian civilians as well as fulfilling their domestic quotas for the misguided blind chauvinism that this hypocritical Labour Government embodies.
In 1933, during the depths of the Great Depression, the Marx brothers made their masterpiece, a film named Duck Soup, which was an anti-war satire that is as relevant today as it was then.
The plot involves Groucho implausibly becoming the leader of the fictional country of Freedonia at a time when conflicts with a neighbouring country are imminent.
Although Starmer would never be considered a wit or holder of a sparkling personality like Groucho Marx, the words of the film's opening song could have been penned very much with the current Prime Minister in mind: 'The last man nearly ruined this place; He didn't know what to do with it. If you think this country's bad off now just wait till I get through with it.'
You have been warned.
Owen Kelly
Stirling
DEFENCE or offence? The PM announces that he intends to spend 3% of GDP on defence. Since UK taxation takes approximately 40% of GDP, my 'fag packet' maths suggests that Westminster intends to spend 7.5% of its tax revenue on defence.
Defence is very important but is it more important than a functioning NHS or social services?
But is it defence or offence? We live on an island where every country to the east of us for thousands of miles is a Nato ally and to invade the UK, the 'bogeyman' would have to conquer them before reaching the English Channel.
There are 195 countries in the world, only 11 feel the need to have aircraft carriers, six of these are members of Nato and have 18 of the 27 currently in service (counting our two which don't really work). The UK military has a presence at 145 sites in 42 different countries – a military network second only to that of the USA. Is that defence?
It's time for the establishment which controls our collective futures to accept we are no longer a world power and start to behave appropriately. I'm completely in favour of the country being well equipped to defend itself but like most UK citizens, my primary concern is what is happening here in the UK now.
If the Government can find the money and wants to create jobs to stimulate the economy then build more homes, improve our infrastructure, fund the NHS properly rather than pay profits to those who gain from the implied threat of war.
How many times do we have to be reminded of the warning given by president Dwight Eisenhower in his valedictory address?
David J Crawford
Glasgow
THE suggestion in Wednesday's edition (What are the big issues dominating this crucial by-election?, June 4) that voter turnout will be low in today's election could well be accurate, since that seems to be the trend these days.
I know the political system is a complete turn-off, and the individuals involved are often hardly worth voting for, but as a matter of principle, surely everybody has a moral obligation to take an interest?
After all, people had to die before any semblance of democracy grudgingly came to these shores.
But then these same political chancers are happy to have a public sedated by technology, crass TV, alcohol etc.
A small fanbase ensures that not too many awkward questions will ever be asked and no-one will be held to account.
The millions who can't be bothered to vote ensure the rest of us are lied to routinely and treated with utter contempt. These non-voters should be ashamed.
Jim Butchart
via email
AMID the ongoing chaos, let it be known that Scotland's hydro, wind and other renewable energy sources are helping to keep this broken UK afloat.
Yet in return, energy-rich Scotland pays among the highest bills in the UK and among the highest in Europe. The SNP and all independence campaigners cannot remain silent to this grossly unfair situation. It's time for the people of Scotland to take back control, believe, stand up and deliver independence.
Grant Frazer
Newtonmore
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Glasgow Times
13 minutes ago
- Glasgow Times
Badenoch insists Tories are still the main opposition to Labour
Thursday's vote in Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse saw the Tories win just 6% of the vote while Reform surged into third place with 26% a month after routing Mrs Badenoch's party in local elections across England. Reform's rise in the polls has led Sir Keir Starmer to regard Nigel Farage's party as Labour's main opposition in the current Parliament, despite having only five MPs. Answering questions after a speech on Friday, Mrs Badenoch dismissed Reform as a 'protest party' and said claims it was the real opposition were 'nonsense'. Describing Reform as 'another left-wing party', she said: 'What they're trying to do is talk this situation into existence. 'Labour is going to be facing the Conservative Party at the next election and we're going to get them out.' The Conservatives' electoral struggles come as the party continues to languish in third place in most polls while Mrs Badenoch's personal ratings show widespread dissatisfaction with her performance. Meanwhile, senior Tory and former leadership candidate Sir James Cleverly appeared this week to split from Mrs Badenoch on her claim that achieving net zero by 2050 was 'impossible'. Speaking on Friday, she maintained that she would be able to turn things around, saying: 'I've always said that things would be tough, in fact in some cases would likely get worse before they get better. 'There is a lot that needs doing, but I am of very, very strong confidence that the public will see that the party has changed and that we are the only credible alternative to Labour.' Her remarks followed a speech at the Royal United Services Institute in Westminster in which Mrs Badenoch launched a commission tasked with examining how leaving the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) would work. While she stopped short of formally committing to leaving the convention, she said it was 'likely' that Britain would 'need to leave'. She said: 'I won't commit my party to leaving the ECHR or other treaties without a clear plan to do so and without a full understanding of all the consequences.'
The Guardian
14 minutes ago
- The Guardian
'Two egos going at it': Americans not surprised by Trump and Musk feud
People in California, Washington and Texas say the relationship between Donald Trump and Elon Musk was 'doomed from the beginning'. The Tesla CEO called for the US president's impeachment and mocked his connections to the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, while Trump threatened to cancel federal contracts and tax subsidies for Musk's companies as the former allies clashed
Telegraph
17 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Starmer will pay a heavy price for his efforts to fight off Reform
Next week's spending review should go better for the Chancellor than widely expected – at least, in the short term. The Treasury communications plan would normally build up to the big day by focussing on things that might get lost in the moment. So if they can pre-announce an extra £1bn for free school meals and £16bn for transport projects, that suggests there is even more good news up Rachel Reeves's sleeve. I suspect there will be reasons enough for Labour MPs to cheer on Wednesday. Together with the about-turn on the winter fuel allowance, however messy that may be, I'm sure this will get the Chancellor through the week. The reasoning for the winter fuel change is on display in Scotland. Labour won a surprise by-election victory in Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse, snatching the Scottish Parliament seat from the SNP. Not only that, but it managed to see off the threat of Reform, which surged into third place in the constituency. The real challenge will come in the autumn. Not least because the bill for this good news will have to be paid. Voters may not then be as grateful as they might be next week when they see their taxes go up thanks to the Government's botched attempt to reform the welfare system. So these short-term wins will quickly evaporate and simply store up more political trouble for the future. With other headwinds going against the Government, Reeves may need to find anywhere between an extra £10bn and £30bn in the next Budget. The Chancellor refused four times to rule out more tax rises this year when questioned at the CBI annual dinner this week, suggesting this is exactly what she is contemplating. Aside from the economic damage this will do, tax rises of this magnitude will have serious political implications. First of all, it will further exacerbate Reform's overall appeal. With a general election so far away, it doesn't really matter that Reform's numbers don't add up. People like what they are saying about tax cuts funded by spending less on net zero and diversity initiatives. With Labour poised to announce more money for net zero, Reform will argue it gives them even more cash with which to fund tax cuts. Any tax rise will therefore make this dividing line even starker. Given the scale of revenue needed, it looks increasingly likely that the Chancellor may have to break her manifesto pledge not to raise income tax, National Insurance or value added tax (VAT), as well as keeping corporation tax at or below 25pc. Some rises are politically more damaging than others. Faced with a choice of which promise to break, which is the most Reform-friendly option? Given that many of Reform's voters are on the economic Left, measures that hit lower-income, working people seem unlikely. So I think we can rule out income tax or National Insurance rises. Likewise, VAT. This was one of the many tax rises that seemed to always appear on Treasury scorecards ahead of each fiscal event I was involved in. It is straightforward and raises serious revenue, with each additional percentage point resulting in around £8bn of extra tax income. George Osborne increased the standard rate of VAT to 20pc, which didn't stop the Conservatives from winning a majority at the next general election. He hadn't promised not to do so, though – and I cannot see how this Government could target people's pockets when its main measure for economic growth is supposed to be real household disposable income. With inflation also expected to stay around 3pc for the rest of this year, anything that pushes prices up in the short term makes little sense. Which leaves one major tax that Labour promised to leave untouched, but that no one is really talking about: corporation tax. For the avoidance of doubt I think it would be a terrible mistake to increase it. It would be the final nail in the coffin of the Government's relationship with 'big business', send a dreadful signal to international investors and represent the end of Reeves's already-crumbling growth narrative. But if you compare it to the alternatives, I can see why Sir Keir Starmer and his Chancellor may go for it. For a start, it would be popular, even populist. Every Treasury commissioned opinion poll and focus group that I saw found overwhelming support for increasing tax on big business. It also passes the PM's payslip test and wouldn't directly hit working people in the pocket. It is lucrative too. Every percentage point increase would raise around £4bn a year. You could therefore get most, if not all the revenue you need, from one measure, avoiding the need to fight on many fronts. Whichever tax rise they do pick, expect the Chancellor to blame 'international events'. They will no doubt be helped somewhat by the Office for Budget Responsibility, which will (rightly) take into account the impact of increased global tariffs on GDP. Whether this negative hit is sufficient to mask the impact of the actions the Government itself has taken, we will see. By the autumn, the Government will be in damage-limitation territory. With Reform continuing to ride high in the polls, they may be tempted to find the money they need from big business rather than working people, regardless of the economic consequences. But the general election is a long way off and Starmer risks paying a heavy price if decisions he takes now to boost Labour's standing fail to sustain momentum by the time it comes around.
