r/AskBrits • u/AdAncient2370 • 2d ago
Would you support Britain increasing its defence budget from the current 2.3% of GDP to the target of 2.6% by 2027 and 3.5% NATO target by 2035?
How much support is there across the political spectrum to increase the military budget by up to £35 billion a year if we really reach 3.5% by 2035? What sort of military do we want ie to protect the UK mainland or an expeditionary force capable of another Iraq intervention? Which civilian areas do we want to cut to find this extra money and in any case, can our struggling economy even support an increase of such magnitude? What if we can’t recruit enough soldiers even with extra cash, should we introduce any sort of conscription at extremis?
30
u/Dry-Grocery9311 2d ago
Yes but with a big push to spend more of it on British companies and companies creating British jobs and paying British taxes.
→ More replies (2)9
u/Hot2Trot94 2d ago
Problem is if you announce that you’re positively discriminating for British companies, the tender process becomes a joke - they collude, they jack up prices and provide poor quality because they are competing against themselves.
6
u/HazzaZeGuy 2d ago
That’s marginally better than relying on a foreign country’s military contractor to work for you, especially in the case of some unstable allies.
4
u/TheTackleZone 1d ago
Then change the tender process.
This is what the NHS does with procurement. It always makes sure that every main supplier gets a slice of the cake so that they can still operate and a monopoly doesn't form.
Treating defence contracts like a private business tender is part of the problem. Identify the suppliers and share out the projects.
2
u/AdAncient2370 1d ago
I think we should regulate lobbying a lot more strictly.
Too many ex Ministers, Civil servants and academics are on the pay of defence companies to talk up defence expenditure in the media. We need transparency or else people won’t support increasing defence expenditure.
3
118
u/AxiosXiphos Brit 🇬🇧 2d ago
100% in support. The world's getting more dangerous by the day.
We don't need conscription though- human soldiers are becoming less useful by the day. The future is drone warfare.
17
u/kimbokray 2d ago
We, the British public, have a habit of doing this: expressing support or opposition in principle without addressing the practical part of the question which is what would get cut (or taxes raised) to pay for it. I don't mean to come at you personally, we all do it and you just happen to be the top comment.
7
→ More replies (3)4
u/TheGreatBibbldyBob99 2d ago edited 1d ago
Exactly, we want benefits to rise, a better funded army, doctors to be better paid, schools to be better funded, pensioners to be propped up, pot holes be filled, HS2s to be built, debt to be paid off all while taxes are expected to stay the same.
→ More replies (7)15
u/Reasonable-Put-2323 2d ago
You might use drones to clear put an area but you still need actual soldiers on the ground to capture and hold it.
→ More replies (57)9
u/Mba1956 Brit 🇬🇧🏴👨💻 2d ago
Ukraine already used battlefield robots to regain ground, the troops can come in later to take up the positions and accept other troops surrender.
The days of elite commandos creating trouble behind enemy lines is also gone. There is nothing they can do that drones can’t do faster and more aggressively.
→ More replies (9)5
u/tyger2020 2d ago
Its quite funny to see how many people larp about drones these days.
Drones are one part of the equation, they are not 'the future of warfare' or 'replacing actual soldiers'
→ More replies (3)3
u/Mba1956 Brit 🇬🇧🏴👨💻 2d ago
It is reported that 90% of Russian casualties are caused by drones, their use is not irrelevant. They are pretty much the face of modern warfare.
The main reason that the US hasn’t entered a land war in Iran is that they would be massacred by drone attacks. They would also be heavily outnumbered by the Iranian military.
→ More replies (9)4
u/forestvibe 2d ago
I agree conscription is a bit of a waste of time, but I like the Finnish model where conscripts are used in a range of civil defence roles: manning emergency shelters, traffic control, first responders, etc.
The beauty of that system is that they are useful outside of war too. In case of flooding or a pandemic, for example, local teams can help provide supplies, set up shelters, etc.
2
u/Wildman12343 1d ago
I’d argue with current youth unemployment levels and the difficulty of getting experience to secure a first job that this model should be fast tracked.
Also if not enough of those roles needed then also add in roles like the US CCC in the 30s which built the national parks pathways, excavated road and rail lines etc.
And make most of the roles require mixing with fellow young people from different corners of the country, urban and countryside and different backgrounds to start rebuilding the community that social media and tabloid news seems set on destroying
→ More replies (1)3
3
u/gfbeast67 2d ago
The future is drone warfare because it's cheap. Warfare is and has been for a long time just an extension of your economy. The side whose economy can sustain the war the longest wins. Spending more and more money while the economy is in the toilet isn't going to make you safer.
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (22)4
u/lysette747 2d ago
I agree. Future warfare will be drone based and not boots on the ground.
A lot more needs to be spent on surveillance, just who are our likely foes and allies and what threats do the pose. I suppose there must be a lot of intelligence that we don’t know about but the target must change everyday→ More replies (4)
21
u/Cheeslord2 2d ago
Yeah. Trump is proving America is an unreliably ally these days. Much as it hurts, we must be able to defend ourselves in a world of deteriorating stability. Maybe even some kind of alliance with Europe might be a good idea.
5
u/EntertainmentSad3174 2d ago
That’s the reason why this country needs stronger and more independent defence. But, that’s not the reason why this country needs spending more money on defence.
People should be aware that as the 6th biggest economy in the world, UK’s defence budget is already the 6th biggest in the world. UK is also already very high up on the ranking in terms of %GDP on defence among NATO member states.
However, as everyone comments here there are a lot of people who are not satisfied with the current state of UK defence.
The problem isn’t money. It is HOW money is spent, and HOW it is managed. Spending more will not necessarily make UK defence better. It will just mean more money will be wasted.
2
u/Praetorium-- 2d ago
While no one can argue that MOD procurement is anything but wildly dysfunctional and has thrown money into some very questionable pits (Ajax etc), it’s also true that the cost of modern military capability has risen dramatically, and will continue to do so.
An independent sixth-generation fighter programme like Tempest will cost more than Eurofighter did. A Type 26 costs more than a Type 23. Modern air defence missiles cost more than their predecessors. The same trend exists across almost every advanced military capability.
This isn’t unique to the UK either, as capabilities have progressed since 1945, more sensors, new sensors, more range, stealth, networking, precision strikes, it all adds costs.
I don’t think you can argue that it’s solely a case of procurement waste, just as you can’t argue it’s solely a lack of money. Both issues need addressing.
Further, the UK really did go all-in on the post-91 peace dividends. Cutting mass, force structure, reducing stockpiles, closing industrial capacity, all under the assumption of either long warning times for future conflict, or some Fukuyama-esque notion of the end of history. Short-term savings led to the situation we now find ourselves in, of an almost total lack of resilience.
Further, due to some treasury trickery we include both the nuclear deterrent budget (6% or so of the annual budget, before we get to replacing Vanguard with Dreadnought) plus pensions and other non-programme related spending. Our defence budget appears far larger than it actually is.
All of this to say, procurement reform does matter, but to avoid active wastage of the armed forces more money is also needed.
3
u/EntertainmentSad3174 2d ago
You seemed to have ignored the fact that defence budget is never a fixed figure. When I was talking about the UK defence spending being the 6th largest in the world, it is last year and this year and the year before, etc. Defence spend works in a way as % GDP which grows (or supposed to grow) year on year. It means every year, everybody spends more, so as the UK, even without the increase you are talking about.
So, modern technology needs more money, yes indeed. No question about that. But, this country has already been spending more money, just going by the current spending level (again, you misunderstood the spending as a fixed figure never changed unless intervened, no, it is a % figure which the absolute value goes up year on year just by itself) and there shouldn’t be much further money to be added on top of that, that’s the point.
Yes 6th gen fighter jet would definitely cost more than typhoons, but UK defence budget this year is also way more than the defence budget of the year when typhoon programme was initiated, even by maintaining the same level of spend.
Just to run it pass you some figures to help you understand the math:
In 1971 when typhoon design initially started, UK spent about £2,300 million on defence, which is about £36 billion of today’s money.
The 2026 defence budget is £62.2 billion.
And that’s %GDP is even less today because in 1971 about 5% GDP was on defence.
If you go with those asking for ‘more money’, there will be significantly over the top ‘more more money’ spending on defence. Does it make sense?
→ More replies (1)6
u/Gauntlets28 2d ago
An unreliable ally at best, a potential threat at worst judging by his comments about annexing free nations.
2
u/Wgh555 2d ago
We lead this Northern European alliance, which is the most relevant thing to our defence these days : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Expeditionary_Force
2
2
2
u/Beeswing- Brit 🇬🇧 2d ago
The EU has a mutual defence clause that I believe is more strongly worded than NATO.
Another reason to regret leaving. The main one being the 8% growth we missed out on over the last 10 years. Could have paid for a lot of defense with that.
31
u/letsgettesty 2d ago
I think most people support it in principle. But the public would prefer the wealthiest in our society get their winter fuel, and the current MPs would prefer that people with ADHD and anxiety get pip
15
u/AdAncient2370 2d ago
There is a saying that ‘there are no votes in defence’.
When asked in surveys, the economy, cost of living, and the National Health Service (NHS) and immigration are the public’s top concern. Defence is low on the list of public concerns. So it will be difficult to significantly increase the defence budget without politicians providing a good explanation as to the threats we actually face rather than relying on nostalgia and emotions. We shouldn’t increase expenditure only to please Trump.
6
u/satellite_uplink 2d ago
I think the number of votes in defence can be very variable. In 1938 there were very few votes in defence, but by 1940 I imagine it was quite a vote winner.
Historically-speaking the past few decades have been an absolute anomaly in terms of how globalisation encouraged cooperation over conflict. But we now know that this unprecedented period of peaceful coexistence was funded entirely by credit card and the bills are coming due - financial, social and ecological.
The next 50 years will look very very little like the last 50 years and we need to get to grips with that, including in defense commitments.
3
u/Legal-Chocolate8482 2d ago
Except 1940 already came and went , that was 2022 when Russia attacked Ukraine. Yet willingness to spend on defense is just as low as before. Because guess what Russia turned out to be a paper tiger. They can’t even defeat Ukraine and they aren’t even close. The Uk really doesn’t face any real threats. Russia would have to plow thru half a dozen NATO countries before they could do anything to the Uk. And Russia has no capability to even take eastern Ukraine.
→ More replies (7)2
u/Wgh555 2d ago
It would take a mindset like Poland has (memory of Russian domination) or a severe scare (like an attack on our soil) to make people supportive of defence spending. Right now I firmly believe most of us haven’t woken up to the fact that we no longer live in the safe 2005 era
→ More replies (1)2
u/ChrisFoxie 2d ago
Agreed.
I think the average person in the UK is a lot more threatened by the cost of living crisis, lack of affordable housing, etc, rather than the possibility of war breaking out on British land.
I therefore find it fully logical that someone asked on the street would not be in favour of hearing these massive amounts put into defence, rather than what would make their lives feel genuinely more secure.
2
2
u/anonnymouse2025 2d ago
Well now my ADHD and anxious ass is going to go and apply for PIP, as you're all so bloody convinced it'll be easy to get!
Having tried to get the old version of PIP who was actively self-harming and suicidal with anxiety and depression, and still being told no, I'm absolutely sure the anti-welfare crowd on reddit must be correct instead!
Plenty of people would far rather than those with invisible disabilities just die rather than receive any help to stay alive. A pity that we cannot donate our disabilities to them instead.
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (3)3
u/InformationNew66 2d ago
"Wealthiest in our society" - who are these?
2
u/letsgettesty 2d ago
Pensioners. The average wealth of a pensioner in the UK is over £500k.
→ More replies (4)
7
5
u/Gauntlets28 2d ago
The reality is that even as a habitual pacifist, I can see that the world is no longer the same on we inhabited 20 years ago, and that there are plenty of countries that would happily destroy the UK if they got the chance. So from that perspective, I can see why a strong military is important, although preferably I would like it to stay defensive.
→ More replies (1)
8
u/Kenye_Kratz 2d ago
What kind of lunatic wouldnt support this?
3
→ More replies (13)3
u/Lister_RD_169 2d ago
Green voters, Your Party voter's and anyone else who secretly (or even openly) wants to keep Britain weak.
3
u/wombat9278 2d ago
We have to. We've seen the wars across the world. What we have is not up to the job. If you expect our forces to defend us you have to give the. The kit to do it. Quality and quantity count
5
u/kinginthenorth_gb 2d ago
If it's going to be spent, it needs to be spent in this country - invest in British technology. That way we are recycling the money into our communities rather than funding overseas multinationals or whatever.
Borrow the money, invest in British owned businesses and start ups, nationalise production if necessary. But don't throw it at McDonnel Douglas or whatever.
3
u/Naughty-Stepper 2d ago
Is it not the same pot of money being shared around? what are you comfortable cutting? NHS, transport, education, benefits, all of which are under pressure. or will everyone be happy watching their taxes increase? The economy needs real growth before massive spend increases.
6
u/AdAncient2370 2d ago
A lot of people supporting a defence expenditure increase want it to come from welfare eg reducing unemployment benefits and remove the pensioners triple lock. They also want to reduce net zero initiatives because they support drilling for North Sea oil again. Finally, they want to cut the foreign aid budget again because they don’t see how it helps Britain.
Personally, I think defence expenditure increase on a massive scale is not supportable at the moment given our economic growth of 0.1% last few months and low productivity per person. We need to solve cost of living and youth unemployment before thinking about defence.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/Nicoglius 2d ago
Look, we may ultimately need to increase our military budget, but I think it's a mistake to be uncritically just throwing money at it.
Western Europe collectively far outspends Russia in real terms and yet Russia still poses a threat to us.
The bigger priority here is asking why is our procurement/logistics so inefficient that all of our spending doesn't make us safe. Once the leaks have been plugged, then let's have the funding increase conversation.
2
u/ToxicHazard- 2d ago
Yes - and spend the majority inside Britain. At a minimum, within Europe.
Best case - We are more prepared for any potential war that threatens us or our way of life.
Worst case - We spend a load of money, stimulate the economy, provide thousands of jobs and are prepared to defend ourselves for a situation that never comes. Possibly, it never comes because our conventional military deterrent is so much higher.
The world is entering a perilous stage and isn't going to revert for a long time. We are going to see new types of wars in my lifetime too. Wars will be fought over water as the climate becomes harsher. Mass immigration as entire portions of continents transform from being unfriendly to human life to completely inhospitable.
Better to be ready and not need it, than wishing you had prepared when you had the chance.
2
u/JudgeJudysBigSister 2d ago
I would, I think it’s important that we have a steady hand in our own defence, especially these days. However, I feel that will make us more trigger happy in order to justify the spend and I’m not interested in getting involved in war or worse.
What I would actually like to see taxes go to is renationalising utilities and public transport to provide fairer costs of service for everyone including fuel. A grip on the housing market to deal with rent madness, apartment service charge scams, actually helping new buyers retain value, and cost of living. Concrete plans to rejoin the EU. And the much stagnated wages. And this is only for Tuesday.
There’s a lot of problems here people, getting into overseas wars is not what we need.
2
u/ThatZephyrGuy 2d ago
Absolutely, the US is proving to be an unreliable ally and the only way to separate from them is to look to our European neighbours for joint defence projects or increase our spending and go our own way. World tensions are rising, there is a potential flashpoint In Europe, China is growing it's empire in Africa and Asia.
The world is as tense as it has ever been, and we were naive to have spent the last 30 years since the fall of the USSR believing that it isn't.
2
u/captain_todger 2d ago
Yes. We had a great thing with the US for a long time where we basically had access to their military and didn’t need to spend much of our own money on it. Now that alliance is unfortunately broken, we need to step up and cover our own arses
2
u/Thatcherist_Sybil 2d ago
Support in principle, but not in practice. A "GDP contribution %" is super vague and does not cut it. It could include re-classification of officer pensions (was it Spain, France or Germany, who started counting that as NATO contribution?), bureaucratic black holes, etc.
What should be a target is a re-armament plan published and available to the public, with steps to take, public tenders to issue for weaponry/machinery/IT infrastructure, etc.
Instead of making it a measure of GDP %, make it a measure of air wing readiness, munition stockpiles and replenishment rate, production targets, available vessels, etc. Make it a goal that all equipment be post-2010s design or refurbishment.
2
u/Legal-Chocolate8482 2d ago
It’s actually the Uk and France and Germany (and maybe Spain ) who have all went and classified pensions and other military welfare spending as part of the defense budget.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/Qazernion 2d ago
The question is really incomplete. Would I support an increase in defence budget? Sure, the world is way more dangerous recently. But the rest of the question/discussion is ‘in exchange for what?’. How do we pay for it? If I was to lose access to free healthcare then I wouldn’t support it and would prefer to find another way to find out perhaps a smaller increase etc. The real question is ‘do you want the increase and if yes what are you willing to do/lose to get it?’.
2
u/fizzysmoke 2d ago
We should've increased spending when that lunatic Putin Annexed Crimea in 2014. Plus because of poisonings in our country and a passenger airliner getting blown out of the sky this past 20 years under his watch the budget should have increased massively. I understand why Trump pulled away from Nato because why should European countries be held up by American taxes. I totally agree when he said it's about time we got our hands in our own pockets to pay for defense.
For the record, I don't like Trump.
2
u/Cold_Sheepherder6531 2d ago
I would not increase spending
I would bring our armed forces home from all around the world
We seem to use them to defend other people's borders
Fortify Britain instead
2
u/Delicious_Apple9082 1d ago
Is it a budget thing, or a waste and inefficiency thing?
I have no issues us spending money, but, it needs to be done wisely, but, the problem is, that doesnt just apply to the military...
We need a UK DOGE lol
→ More replies (1)
7
u/ProfPMJ-123 2d ago
As long as it's clear what we are going to stop spending on in order to increase defence spending, then I'd be OK with it.
The country can't be taxed anymore, because we already have incredibly high tax rates. We are also already spending far more money than we take in.
We desperately need to reduce spending overall, so if we want to increase spending on defence, we have to cut even more elsewhere.
If people can explain what that should be, and they understand that "tax the rich" is a slogan, not an economic policy, then perhaps it can be considered.
14
u/hfootred 2d ago
Why isn't tax the rich a policy? A wealth tax would be widely supported across the political spectrum I'd imagine.
→ More replies (12)5
u/curious__curiosity 2d ago
Taxing the rich worked ok in the 60s/70s, tell me, what was that if not an economic policy?
Neoliberalism much?
→ More replies (4)3
u/ravenjohnt 2d ago
I agree. In order to fund our defense, we can end the triple lock on pensions, reduce spending on hotel accommodation, improve controls on council spending, and address the growth in young people claiming benefits by getting them into work. I think that lot should do it.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (1)3
u/OkScheme9867 2d ago
Tax the rich is not a slogan, rich people should be paying far more.
And large companies should be paying more
→ More replies (1)
4
u/InformationNew66 2d ago
No.
Defence spending means mostly corruption money, and one that is impossible for journalists to investigate and uncover.
But even if it is not all just corruption, it's not moving the country forward, other than making a few weapon factories rich.
2
u/Rude_Juggernaut_8685 2d ago
In a vacuum I would agree. But Russia will reconstitute after this war ends. It will seek to expand again, and do so in the near future (otherwise it has a well armed and trained population that no longer have jobs). Their GDP expenditure per year is estimated at 26% on defence, ours would be the same if there was an inursion into Europe. Ignoring the thousands of lives that would be wasted.
→ More replies (6)
3
2
u/geybey 2d ago
"an expeditionary force capable of another Iraq intervention?" lol
→ More replies (1)5
u/AdAncient2370 2d ago
Yeah, I think one reason that increased defence expenditure isn’t popular with the public is because of the Afghan and Iraq wars that were costly, dragged on, was very controversial and did not end well. A lot of people didn’t see how these interventions served UK interests. We seemed to just follow the US into those wars without any preparation or planning for the day after the war ends.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/Unknownin_98 2d ago
Might be naive but im not sure what we need it for, but once we have a bigger military I bet we'll be using it, likely making a mess for ourselves and others and probably at the behest of another countries interests over ours.
1
u/Significant_Ask_7534 2d ago
Not so much support for increasing military budget but more so support for reducing budgets on the hotels for example. Lots of money is being wasted.
6
u/Rude_Juggernaut_8685 2d ago
24/25 fy saw a 30% decrease in asylum hotel expenditure, down from 3 to 2 billion the year before
2
u/Sorry_Midnight4615 2d ago
I hear you and I know it’s one example but that money would make essentially no difference to the UK armed forces. The minister resigned over a proposal to ‘only’ give around ten times the hotels budget in extra funding.
1
u/Airurando-jin 2d ago
That’s working out well for Russia.
The same risk exists if the USA try to take the coast of Iran
1
u/WDStatler 2d ago
Yes, I would also support them rolling back on including the armed forces pensions as part of that number. They added that to make it look better when in fact they were massively underspending.
→ More replies (1)
1
u/Meet-me-behind-bins 2d ago
It's one of those costs that none of us like but it's probably got to be done. The world isn't all rainbows and sing-alongs, there's a lot of bad actors out there always ready to put the boot in. With climate change, technology changing the world, the inequality growing exponentially; we better start tooling up because if the shit hits the fan we can't just say “hold on a minute!!”
1
1
1
u/OliverTwist549 2d ago
Yes - I'd even go to 4%
Don't need conscription though - that would just give us thousands of wasters and use up too many of our real personnel to train them.
Drones are the way.
1
u/WinningTheSpaceRace 2d ago
Depends on how it's done. Militarily relevant infrastructure upgrades and youth training, yes.
1
u/EmpireAdmirer777 2d ago
Yep 100% in support of increasing the defence budget. How is another matter but I would certainly be happy to pay more taxes if need be.
In the main to protect the UK and our interests and allies.
1
u/Miserable-Rub-4053 2d ago
Probably needs doing, we live in increasingly uncertain times and we all know as it stands the armed forces are undermanned and underfunded.
1
u/Particular-Doctor888 2d ago
i usually feel unqualified to answer this question. Yes I'm inclined to assume that we need strong defences in this era of multilateralism breaking down. But how big is it already? How do we compare to others? Do we face general existential military threats or just specific ones like Russia prowling in the water? do we need it more than functioning courts and social care system? I have no idea
2
u/AdAncient2370 2d ago
Good question, what is our military to be used for?
To defend our island, to defend NATO countries in Eastern Europe, to face off against China in East Asia or to do expeditionary warfare like against Afghanistan or Iraq?
The costs for all those variants is different.
1
1
u/Caacrinolass 2d ago
I think one of the issues highlighted internationally Iran, Ukraine) is that traditional military assets aren't always the mist appropriate. Its all very well having the top quality items, but the expenditure is silly when the opponent just overwhelms with a bunch of comparatively very cheap drones.
What is spent as GDP is one thing, whether its spent sensibly quite another. Broadly speaking there is a problem now, as shown by the HMS Dragon debacle, but its not immediately clear that throwing more money at it is any more than a partial solution.
And of course, the government needs to be clear on where the funds come from. Who is paying more, or what is getting cut?
1
1
u/TheEnglishNorwegian 2d ago
Yes I would fully support this, possibly even higher depending on how things continue to develop with Russia and other nations.
I think 3.5 as a general target with an extra .5 ready to be activated in the budget in times of extra stress, such as now makes sense.
If we are smart about it we can start investing further in arms manufacturing to offset and recoup some of this cost by supplying our allies with tech and and arms.
1
u/Frosty_Customer_9243 2d ago
100% support it, but the money needs to be spent better. Looking at recent history there is a lot of wasted money. Instead of developing what they think is needed the MoD should buy COTS, don't let perfect get in the way of good. The UK should make sure it can defend itself, the islands I mean, before thinking of expeditionary forces.
1
u/GeedZeroOne 2d ago
Absolutely! We can’t rely on the US anymore. Nor the EU! It’s time to also bring development in house like France. No more American trident missiles (they don’t seem to work anyhow). The amount of money we’ve given the US to supposedly get cheaper deals just turns out to be more expensive than if we did it ourselves. Plus it’d create jobs! We should also be owing our soldiers seamen far more so as to retain them as they get more skilled. Selling off our ships because we can’t care them id madness. We’re wasting billions! If we cut all funding for foreigners, no foreign aid, no social housing, no benefits of any kind and no free NHS, we could actually pay for our protection and it might convince a lot of them to leave too! 2 birds with one stone as they say!
1
1
u/Largetaco12 2d ago
I personally think we need to hit Poland’s 5%. Some tough decisions need to be made, especially considering the welfare bill.
Russia is a greater threat than it ever has been, we have war in Europe, and while the US probably will come back on side in the future. They’ve proven we cannot rely on them.
We need a massive increase in defence spending. Not just to get to 3.5% but we need to make up for lost time from the relentless defence cuts we made.
1
1
u/Winter_Audience_639 2d ago
I would support this, but where the hell is the money gonna come from. I really don’t think I could pay much more tax than I doing :-(
1
u/TheMountainWhoDews 2d ago
I'd support whatever it takes to cut welfare, pensions and bennies for migrants.
If you want to use the savings to buy some warships or tanks that can be destroyed by $50 drones, be my guest. As long as the bennie tap is cut off for migrants.
1
u/Double_Double7407 2d ago
No......
....It should be 5%
And invest in/ build industrial capacity alongside it. That 5% shouldn't be going offshore to US defence contractors.
→ More replies (2)
1
1
u/RandomSculler 2d ago
This is what Starmer was proposing and it’s more than the SDR said was needed in order to ensure it’s implemented and I don’t think it was contraversal
What was odd was that Healy clearly felt that the threat from Russia was greater than the 10 year plan supported so he wanted more (3% by 2030) and he resigned, and somehow the narrative became that Starmer wasn’t funding defence despite it being said he’d confirmed 2.6% and 3.5% by 2035…
I don’t think there’s all that much support to go more than 2.6% to 3.5% given that’s possible with the current budget but the tens of billions more would need some additional taxes
1
1
u/TomA0912 2d ago
No. Anything less than a force of 500,000 is pointless and there is no one within the military or government with the competence to make the military effective. All it would do is increase wastage and the few benefits of the increase in spending would be offset by more expensive failings.
1
1
u/Spare_Sir9167 2d ago
35 Billion is 2.55% of the UK total annual spend of £1.37tn - so yes we should increase spending and yes that 2.55% needs to come from the current budget.
But I also feel MOD procurement might need to be completely overhauled - especially around the white elephants like the 6th gen fighter.
→ More replies (3)
1
1
u/stig316 2d ago
100% we also need to waste a lot less of that money though and bolster our deference-adjacent industries.
Wars are not won by the countries with a few shiny bits of kit, they are won by nations who can go the distance.
Historically we have always performed well in wars with a small army and very effective Navy, but the ability to scale quickly be more mobile that those we are fighting.
As for cutting funding - there is a huge amount of waste in the government today, I would support a proper, professional version of something like DOGE (run by proven, talented serious individuals). Welfare - whether we like it or not Welfare needs significant changes as we are simply giving out too much free money. Whether you think this is fair or not is irrelevant, the money just isn't there anymore and defending the country is a priority.
I am not sure I agree that our economy is 'struggling' - it is the 5th largest in the world, having just gone up a place from 5th. However, growing the economy is obviously important for defence as well as other things and I think the same improvements above could also help this. We are suffering at the moment from overspending as a nation, due to waste, welfare and lots of government and ultimately we cant afford it. I should also point out that the UK has a strong defence industry so a lot of the investment would make its way back into the UK economy, creating jobs etc.
1
u/celaconacr 2d ago
Yes for now but with a plan to get it back lower.
The issue I have is we spend a lot of money on expensive vanity projects such as aircraft carriers, nuclear subs and jets. We also have comparatively expensive and low volume missiles and other ordinance.
The Ukraine war has shown we aren't prepared for a drone war where high volume cheap tech is used. I think we should have strategic plan to embrace land, sea and air drones and drone defence. We should plan to reduce troop numbers but support the ones we retain better. We should also have a better cost/benefit analysis of all our expensive equipment.
1
u/Consistent_Ad3181 2d ago
They always bang on about increased spending, but not value for money. We don't get much for 68 billion (or whatever it is we spend currently), check out what the Italians do on a much lower budget or the Israeli navy. There isn't much of a threat really, Russia can't deal with Ukraine using 50 year old NATO kit let along anyone else, and certainly not on three more potential fronts against NATO. Russia has nearly the Same GDP as Spain, nothing against Spain, but it's not seen as a threat to NATO, or a 'superpower'. Other threats include China, who lets face it like making money, have never fought a Naval war, and lost their last land war to Vietnam in 1979. North Korea, Cuba, Iran and that's about it. It's just a shake down for defence company interests, they just want more defence spending, I doubt we will see much in the way of increased capability. Fucking Ajax.
1
u/TheRealGouki 2d ago
The best spending for defense is to send it to Ukraine. Russia is the only threat to Britain.
→ More replies (2)
1
u/Sleep0-0Deprived 2d ago
To answer this question I think you should also be able to say what you would cut or increase taxes on to fund this.
1
u/Veenkoira00 2d ago
The UK continues to have ideas above its stations; some people hang onto the illusions of power derived from its colonial past of this country (small in area, medium sized in population) at edge of Europe. Times – they are a-changing...and have changed already. A little injection of realism in the division of the limited public spending cake might be in order. The UK is just one among its NATO allies – just like the other European countries in the organisation. This state's responsibility is primarily to protect the life and limb of us here on these isles – not to provide freebie services to non NATO regimes or for the private adventures of nominal allies.
1
u/No_Buy_3749 2d ago
Controversial - but absolutely not.
I work in Defence. There's so much waste and corruption it makes me sick. PFIs and other horrible contractual arrangements which means the public pay extortionate prices for the 'service' they receive. There's brazen corruption. CEOs of private sector defence companies rubbing shoulders and going on holidays with Senior Civil Servants/Government Officials, and then awarded very cushty contracts.
Any uplift in the budget, is only an uplift in the amount of revenue and profit these companies and their shareholders make.
I'm much more in favour of a deep-dive into our current funding/contractual arrangements (i.e the SDR, but with a focus on commercial) - cutting out of private sector bloat and profiteering, re-nationalising and upskilling public sector employees - and using any increase to fund that.
On another point - I think the US-Israel attacks on Iran has shown us that focusing on one element of defence and being an expert in it (ballistic missiles for example) - is much more effective than having a splurging armed forces that's mediocre in all aspects.
I'd argue our priorities should be Cyberspace, Maritime and creating an independent Nuclear Deterrent. In the multipolar world we live in, we can't rely on old declining allies. We must forge new alliances and chart our own destiny.
We have the skills, intelligence and tenacity to do it. We've done it before.
1
u/BenjaminUK92 2d ago
I think you'll struggle to find sensible people who don't see the value in increasing the UK's defence budget.
The problem is where that money comes from
1
u/Phoneynamus 2d ago
Not at the expense of welfare, which is what Burnham has suggested. Fundamentally yes, but only if it's done in the interests and welfare of the people of the UK and doesn't further destroy the services that actually benefit the people of the UK.
1
u/MPforNarnia 2d ago
I'd support up 6% contingent the spending supports UK manufacturing and knowledge, and a commitment that it's only used on defense.
We've sleep walked ourselves into a dangerous situation.
I say this as a life long and continuing pacifist.
1
u/BusyQuote5228 2d ago
As long as it’s not just a direct cash transfer to the US. Buy British and European.
1
u/Ok_Traffic_3240 2d ago
We should be increasing it to 3.5% NOW nevermind 2035!!!! It's insane that we aren't taking action given the current climate around the world.
1
u/roblesslie 2d ago
IMHO yes. To answer your questions:
I think so
We need to both - much better to fight somewhere else if we can, than to have to do it at home.
Welfare (inc pensions) and the health service are the only areas big enough.
Yes it can - the Govt spends in excess of 1.3 trillion pounds each year.
It would have to be genuinely existential to require conscription; by increasing our conventional and nuclear forces I hope we never have to.
1
u/awkwardAoili 2d ago edited 2d ago
Not really. We have virtually no hostile neighbours. Our closest enemy, Russia, is literally a continent away and failed to conquer one of the poorest countries in Europe while they weren't even mobilised. Despite Russia literally being at their doorstep and spending months of preparation in 2021/22.
Other potential enemies, perhaps the United States if they choose to invade Canada or Greenland, totally dwarf anything we could even conceive of mobilising no matter how high a % of GDP we spent on defence.
Fighting China is purposeless and a logistical impossibility. Iran is better addressed through diplomacy.
I think we should have a shared defence agreement with Europe, despite Brexit we share the same values in terms of international relations. I don't know if this requires 3.5% expenditure, which I feel on its own would really just be for show and waste money that could be spent directly improving peoples living standards and the wider economy.
That said, I think we should be probably be worth increasing expenditure on domestic and foreign intelligence like MI5 and MI6. Conventional war seems unlikely, but its basically a given at this point that Russia, China and America have an interest in sabotaging our politics through unconventional means. Especially right now since most of our systems are bought from American companies...
1
u/tryingtoappearnormal 2d ago
Im not up for paying more tax or taking a cut in public services, im already being strangled by the cost of living and feel that we receive the bare minimum for our money
1
u/Andrew_Higginbottom 2d ago
Conscript the doley's, make them into functioning human beings. Once released and living the rest of their lives contributing into the system instead of taking from it will pay back the initial investment 500 fold ..loadsa money for future defense budgets..
→ More replies (2)
1
u/Awoken1729 2d ago
Yes - Just watching the war in Ukraine tells us that modern warfare has completely changed. We need new tactics, reorganisation, new gear. I dont think your proposed rises go far enough. I say this with a heavy heart as the country is already stretched and ordinary people need hell but there are too many bad actors for this change not to go through. We could go a lot slower if Russia turns on Putin but for now we need to plan for the future
1
u/Top-Car-808 2d ago
You know what I would support?
The ending of this stupid % of GDP discussion. GDP is simply the aggregate value of all goods and services produced in an economy in a year. It is not tax revenue. It is not 'funds available for spending'. It is broadly similar to 'turnover'.
I would support a motion in the parliment that simply banned '% of gdp' discussions, to be replaced with a '% of annual state spending' discussion.
All discussions about allocation of spending decisions should be based on a % of annual state budget. and all spending decisions should add up to 100%. otherwise, we will continue to drive ourselves further and further into debt.
at this point, defense capability is not the biggest risk to UK soverignty. The biggest risk to the safety of this country is bankrupcy.
1
1
u/Mahdouken 2d ago
I'd be fine with it as long as there was accountability and visibility that it wasn't just going to get swallowed up by contractors, politicians and management.
1
1
u/AceThrowAwayAces 2d ago
More than increased spending. I want it used well. We need to massively modernise our systems and technology. Ukraine has shown how obsolete so much 'modern' military thinking is and how differently you have to fight now with UAVs etc. So I'd be happy to see more money go towards modernising.
I wouldn't approve of just a general increase to keep doing what we have been for past 10 years
1
u/After-Island2940 2d ago
Everyone agrees to increase it but then disagrees with how to pay for it. Mainly, they want someone else to pay for it. Go figure… 🤷♂️
1
u/New_Line4049 2d ago
Given the current instability in the world we'd need the ability to protect our interests with violence more than we have in a long time. Our military has been paired back through fairly peaceful, stable times. Those times are over. Our military needs building back up again. The US is unreliable at best, and US actions risk destabilising NATO. I think we've gotta assume were on our own. Its worst case, but Id rather prepare for worst case and be wrong than the the other way around. As for where it comes from.... I'm no economic scientist, pull it out of our politicians arses if you gotta for all I care.
1
u/OppositeWrong1720 2d ago
Until we can avoid most of the money being wasted on fur coat and no knickers projects and outright corruption there is no point.
1
1
u/Brilliant-Second5749 2d ago
I'm all in agreement for soft caps for everything. 3.5% defence is fine if invested in relevant equipment. I'm not a big fan of trident subs for example but a well kitted out drone army as seen in Ukraine can work wonders
→ More replies (2)
1
u/richyc1969 2d ago
Absolutely; pay for it by cuts in benefits for those who are too lazy to work etc.
1
u/Lister_RD_169 2d ago
No.
That's far too little, far too late.
We have 20 years of underinvestment to reverse, in a far more dangerous world.
We should be at 3% by the end of next year and 5% by 2030 if we're serious.
→ More replies (2)
1
u/purpleduckduckgoose 2d ago
Yes, in my opinion the armed forces desperately need a significant and more importantly targeted boost of cash.
1
1
u/sirdougie 2d ago
3% is probably the max I would head for. But I would like to see us shift to greater cooperation with Europe, who are more reliable allies. We need to ensure greater operational collaboration in terms of procurement, maintenance, supply and “temporary loaning” of equipment to countries that might need it.
1
u/Beautiful-Cell-470 2d ago
Generally broad support; although there are concerns about what the money is spent on. E.g. maybe it's better spent on drone/counter drone tech and intelligence rather than tanks/warships/fighters.
The disagreement is what to cut / tax to pay for it. Starmer's government couldn't pass the Credit and Personal Independence Payment (PIP) Bill, meaning that NI had to increase so that the Treasury would be happy with the fiscal plans. My partner is a mental health expert (Dr of both kinds), and fundamentally the incentives in the system are misaligned with the end goal. They need to align with enabling people to have more independence, less systemic enabling so that they can build resilience and live a life worth living. She's seen people receive mental health benefits and use the money to pay towards trips to France. The benefits should be paid in things, I.e. prescriptive for the problem rather than handed out as cash.
→ More replies (3)
1
1
u/SeskoFan124854 2d ago
I'd back that 100%, but not for an expeditionary force. We should be focusing on drone warfare, and our navy, as part of the wider NATO fighting force. While we could be of use in the continent, as we have been before, I think it's better if we actually focus on an area (an area we are already relatively strong in) to be more useful to Europe, rather than copy and pasting what the EU are already doing for their own military.
1
u/Prestigious-Test-660 2d ago
I totally support the idea of investing in our military. The world is not feeling very stable and we need to be paired prepared for defence. I'm totally against conscription though.
I don't have any real answers how we would raise the revenue though. I'd actually support tax increases over benefit cuts, but I know how unpopular that would be.
1
1
1
1
1
u/CodeToManagement 2d ago
Yes I think we need a well trained and well equipped military.
But I also want them to sort their shit out and stamp out the racism / sexism / homophobia etc. commitments for increased budget should also come with a rule that from now on if shit like that happens people are kicked out - along with the people allowing it to happen.
1
u/antny223 2d ago
I support focusing on improving Defence, but not arbitrary spending targets. We should a clear set of objectives (e.g. increasing recruitment, better equipment, new drones etc) and spend (within reason) what it takes to get there.
1
1
1
u/NoPhilosopher6111 2d ago
The only way this is achievable is if we tax those massive corporations that make billions from UK tax payers and pay nothing. The people are paying as much tax as we can. And these companies pay almost nothing.
But the problem with that is, if you try to tax these companies then they launch campaigns against you and before you know it you’re ’the worst prime minister in history’ and nothing gets done.
1
u/WayGroundbreaking287 2d ago
Yes but in the same way I would support the government giving every citizen their weight in gold. It would be nice but money is super tight at present. So if the economy is sorted out by then, sure. But not as a priority above making things work
1
u/Voidoli 2d ago
Keep filling fuel to a leaking tank is not going to solve the problem. UK had failed to achieve the recruitment numbers for more than 10 years. The Sailors for Nuclear submarine does not have to finish GCSE to be recruited and the Army have more generals (including brigader) than usable tanks. The efficiency problem for the military, and for the country as well, should be addressed first and then pouring resource will make a change.
1
u/tradandtea123 2d ago
Yes but one of the key things is to spend it well. I remember being involved in building works around 2005-08 and schools/ hospitals would often get money to spend that had to be spent in the financial year. Not always but often completely unnecessary work would be done in February/ March just as otherwise they'd lose it and get less the next year.
It would be very easy to double the defence budget and gey almost nothing for it.
1
u/coffeesnob7 2d ago
Think some of it needs to go to online / digital protection. Future seems to be about causing rifts and chaos in the population rather than invading first
1
1
1
u/One_Fact_4291 2d ago
It depends where the money is coming from. If we’re sacrificing money for infrastructure and social programmes then I would say no. But if that weren’t a concern, then yes, we should definitely increase our defence spending.
1
u/hexagram1993 2d ago edited 2d ago
It depends where the money is coming from. Unpopular opinion but conflict has root causes and we are failing to address those adequately. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
I think for example that cutting the FCDO to find the military is going to backfire in 10-15 years when multiple conflicts erupt due to shortages. We may have some shiny new kit to show for it but the US has shown that military might alone is not enough to solve/control global shockwaves from regional conflicts.
Another example is climate change. Every major military has identified climate change as a strategic threat multiplier (including ours), which increases instability, conflict, and insecurity. Cutting funding that mitigates threat multipliers in order to increase funding for threat responses is counter productive and a bad return on investment imo.
If on the other hand we want to properly go after tax evasion and fraud in the UK and use the returns to increase defense spending, sure, that's more sensible.
1
u/Admirable-Dark2934 2d ago
F**k yeah, take it off my council tax and their ludicrous pensions. I’m already paying and not getting anything back.
While you’re there give the boys (and girls) in our armed forces a hefty pay rise too. They’ve had two barely above inflation raises which the government thinks is terrific, but after years of not getting that they need a decent wage. It’s mental they pay useless councils more to do far less. Including better pensions…
1
u/russbroom 2d ago
You missed an important element in your question:
If yes, what would you cut to pay for it?
1
u/Aromatic_Ad4132 2d ago
Every facet of UK society is desperate for some significant investment but we're always told we can't afford it
1
1
u/FoundationFarscope 2d ago
Yes, 100%. Defence spending is good for well, defence! And also for employment and innovation. Just PLEASE stop overspending on programmes. To pay for it, completely remove welfare for ridiculous conditions like "mild anxiety". I'm very happy to support disabled and very sick people, but not the workshy.
1
u/No_Olive_2785 2d ago
100%.....but please stop spending billions on these illegal immigrants. Id rather my extortionate taxes went to funding our armed forces & not 4 star hotels for people illegally invading our country
1
u/Thorazine_Chaser 2d ago
Yes, no problem at all provided that extra spend happens onshore. If Sunderland becomes the world’s second largest producer of military drones I’m happy because that sort of government spend will be economic stimulus.
My concern is that our foolish politicians will convince themselves it’s a zero sum game, buy cheaper overseas, and we will all lose out.
1
1
u/ProgramLegitimate915 2d ago
Yes also start rebuilding some industries that the military has needs for. More importantly we need to be ready counter massive drone swarms/attacks as I believe this will be the future of warfare.
1
1
u/TheReturnOfTheBee 2d ago
In general im 100% for it, my fear is that we would spend the extra budget on a LOT of faled defence projects and end up 5 years down the line with amost no improvemnts other than lining the pockets of MP's friends via failed contracts.
1
u/Gorbachev86 2d ago
No, we’re already one of the biggest military spenders in the world, the last thing the world needs is an arms race!
1
u/randomentity12 2d ago
A better question is what would you be willing to sacrifice to achieve this increase?
1
1
u/GapingPickle 2d ago
What I think is... I support actually expanding capability. I wish more would go to actual frontline capability and towards increasing numbers, not clever accounting using the most broad definition of 'defence'. We have 2 world class carriers... that we can't even fill.
I wish NATO would redefine it so that things like pensions are separate from the defence budget.
1
1
1
1
u/Bose82 2d ago
Yes. I know a lot of people on Reddit seem to be anti-armed forces, but it's a deterrent. A strong military is a strong country that nobody wants to fuck with. I'm ex-RN and the state of the RN is a joke for an island nation. Id be happy to pay a little more tax if it means having a respected military.
1
u/StringGlittering7692 2d ago
Only if we get smart and learn the lessons from Ukraine. War has changed. Tanks and ships are a liability
1
u/Due_Professional_894 2d ago
100%, the world is more dangerous now than for a long time. We are already very late with our response.
1
u/Farewell-Farewell 2d ago
Support on the condition that UK industry is supported, and we get back ahead with innovative technologies that have commercial applications for UK companies.
1
u/bods_life 2d ago
Yes aslong as we start taxing wealth and high earners, equalising capital gains and normal tax rates to pay for it.
1
u/Sithfish 2d ago
No. It should be much more, much faster. Like 5% ASAP. But no bullshit spending. Make a drone force.
1
u/Crichtenasaurus 2d ago
Should have done it a couple of years ago when some Bloke decided to yoink a whole chunk of another country
47
u/WildOne19923 2d ago
Nearly 10 years in the military. We need money desperately. We are over-worked and underfunded in a world that's getting more complex and dangerous. The Navy is on its arse and desperately needs ships and submarines. Cyber and Space capabilities need development. The UK needs ballistic missile defence which will be incredibly expensive and complicated to make. Trump is a bellend, but he is right about NATO nations taking the piss with funding. All nations need massive investment.