Starmer planning big cuts to UK aid budget to boost defence spending, say sources

25 comments

1. Starmer is currently making a statement to the house, but it started with an exchange about the fact that the contents had been leaked, so I think it’s pretty likely to be true.

   Tl;dr of the statement: 2.5% GDP on defence by 2027. £13.4 billion more annually from 27 onwards. That’s 3 years earlier than the Conservatives said they would do it, which was itself 5 years before the MoD’s most optimistic predictions.

   Ambition for defence spending to rise to 3% of GDP “in the next Parliament”, which would mean by ~2034

   As expected, the aid budget will be cut from 0.5% GDP to 0.3% to fund the defence increase

2. >Labour had promised to raise the aid budget from 0.5% to 0.7% when “fiscal conditions allow”, but in recent weeks officials have begun to look at cutting it instead as a way to help pay for the planned increase in defence spending.

   Yet another Labour pledge broken. If they slash this further they’re not reaching 0.7% by the end of Parliament. Also, by the way, a good chunk of this 0.5% goes towards asylum accommodation in the UK as a way to save Home Office some money.

   >David Lammy, the foreign secretary, told the Guardian earlier this month that Donald Trump’s plans to make dramatic cuts to the US’s international aid budget could be a “big strategic mistake” that allows China to step in and further its global influence.

   So why is it that when we’re doing it it’s not a “big strategic mistake”?

3. Yup, just confirmed aid is going from 0.5% gdp to 0.3 and defence is going up to 2.6%.

   It’s the right decision.

4. Dont blame him the US isnt a defender of democracy and freedom anymore.

5. Swapping soft power for hard power is the only logical choice in a post Pax-Americana world.

6. Good, we have lived in a post Cold War dividend for far too long

   We need to get back to supporting our military and our NATO allies

7. Good decision from the man. We give aid to countries like India while they have a space program ffs.

8. How sad is it that we are having to invest more in defence during the most enlightened era in human history. We could be solving the big issues collaboratively, but nooooo.

9. Overall, I think they should aim for 3% sooner ideally, but otherwise, I think this is the right decision, including where the money comes from.

10. So long as he spends it on actual defence and not on defence procurement.

11. 2.6% by 2027 is not ideal. Needs to be higher, sooner.

12. The money had to come from somewhere, it sucks but that’s the truth

13. This is actually a good choice, our aid budget goes to quite ALOT of corrupt nations who don’t really deserve it anymore so time to focus inwards.

14. Good. Places like India that have space programs should not be receiving aid.

15. Really good, sensible move given what’s going on right now. I’m glad this has been done sooner rather than later.

16. It sucks and is a shame to move aid money to defense, but there’s a reason for this being needed and blames to point at.

17. been needed for a long time. hard power matters more than soft power in this new era

18. Not fast enough, we need an emergency fund a la Germany.

19. Good.

    The Americans have shown, **at best**, they can’t be trusted. The UK and Europe at large needs to get its shit together to achieve self-sufficient defence capabilities sufficient to oppose Russia without US aid.

    Good job we didn’t needlessly sacrifice our relationships and position within Europe any time recently! That would look bad right about now.

20. I think this is a mistake. Soft power fat out classes hard power. We can’t even get the numbers joining the forces as it is.

21. The best way to do it. But unpopular though this view may be on both the left and the right, I still maintain that it’s a waste of money. Russia struggles against a weaker enemy right on their border. The idea that they pose any real threat to the UK is laughable, especially since we’re lucky enough to be an island.

    By choosing to spend so much on defence, what is almost literally being said is “Yes, I’d prefer to focus our preciously limited resources on this 0.001% risk, instead of focusing them on the 100% immediate and real risk we have of failing health services, homelessness, etc.” It’s precisely equivalent to spending your money on insurance against alien abduction and neglecting to insure yourself against fire and theft. It’s like a doctor triaging a patient with a grazed knee over someone bleeding profusely, because the knee has a small chance of serious complications.

    I understand this will get me called a russian bot and whatever else by the usual suspects, but it is what it is.

22. Weak decision. Instead of taking advantage of Trump’s cuts to advance soft power and improve British business, Starmer follows suit. And for a pitiful 0.1-0.2% hike in the defence budget.

    Meanwhile there’s billions of untaxed wealth knocking around that would mean we could retain our aid budget and get defence spending up to 3%. But scaredy Starmer is just doing what’s popular, not what’s best for the country.

23. Of course it depends entirely what kind of aid they’re cutting this from but I’ll take defence spending over aid all day every day

24. This is long overdue, the first duty of government is to ensure the safety of their citizens.
    Everything else is secondary.

25. Good. As much as aid is a good thing we need to posture and sort what’s going on pragmatically and we should cut foreign aid before we up taxes or cut welfare.

Comments are closed.