| Could the UK 'afford' 5% defence spending AND ... 10:51 - Feb 13 with 1479 views | NthQldITFC |
... long-term investment in public infrastructure and services for the common good if we weren't just a gigantic funnel for international corporate greed, excessive and pointless personal wealth creation, and the economic rape of the semi-compliant populace while we look the other way and squabble about matters of relative triviality?
Putting aside the evasive 'this is not how it works' excuses, if we could actually reboot the system in an entirely pragmatic and non-self-interested way, could this country produce enough sustainable work/produce to function in a common good-driven way? |  |
| |  |
| Could the UK 'afford' 5% defence spending AND ... on 11:22 - Feb 13 with 1386 views | OldFart71 |
I think it's all about making it viable for businesses to invest. Take the AstraZeneca situation where they have pulled out of a £750 million building of an R & D developement due to promises made by the Tories and now broken by Labour. But it really boils down to whether these companies put corporate greed ahead of spending. An instance I was made aware of was at a local Tesco where they had most of the trolleys used by disabled people broken down. When questioned why they were not being repaired the answer was because the cost would affect bonuses paid to managers. On the question of making things viable and allowing business to expand and Labour proclaiming they want to build the economy the recent budget where N.I. was increased it has the reverse effect as all they will do to protect themselves is to cut back on projects, give staff fewer hours and put up prices. You only have to go into a supermarket these days and find 20 check outs with only one or two opened with queues of people with full trolleys waiting and moaning. |  | | |
| Could the UK 'afford' 5% defence spending AND ... on 11:45 - Feb 13 with 1312 views | J2BLUE |
We could if we had a wealth tax...
To put the wealth of individuals ahead of national security is incredible. No one needs hundreds of millions/billions. |  |
| |
| Could the UK 'afford' 5% defence spending AND ... on 11:46 - Feb 13 with 1310 views | BrandonsBlues |
Taxes? | | | |
| Could the UK 'afford' 5% defence spending AND ... on 11:53 - Feb 13 with 1278 views | WeWereZombies |
| Could the UK 'afford' 5% defence spending AND ... on 11:22 - Feb 13 by OldFart71 |
I think it's all about making it viable for businesses to invest. Take the AstraZeneca situation where they have pulled out of a £750 million building of an R & D developement due to promises made by the Tories and now broken by Labour. But it really boils down to whether these companies put corporate greed ahead of spending. An instance I was made aware of was at a local Tesco where they had most of the trolleys used by disabled people broken down. When questioned why they were not being repaired the answer was because the cost would affect bonuses paid to managers. On the question of making things viable and allowing business to expand and Labour proclaiming they want to build the economy the recent budget where N.I. was increased it has the reverse effect as all they will do to protect themselves is to cut back on projects, give staff fewer hours and put up prices. You only have to go into a supermarket these days and find 20 check outs with only one or two opened with queues of people with full trolleys waiting and moaning. |
Be interesting to see if the supermarket boycott that started in the Balkans last month spreads further, but I suspect consumers in the United Kingdom are too docile.
"2025 Southeast Europe retail boycotts - Wikipedia" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Southeast_Europe_retail_boycotts |  |
| |
| Could the UK 'afford' 5% defence spending AND ... on 12:08 - Feb 13 with 1235 views | J2BLUE |
Seems like a self important jackass.
So yes, he's doing a good job trying to be like Musk. | |
| |
| Could the UK 'afford' 5% defence spending AND ... on 12:14 - Feb 13 with 1218 views | homer_123 |
| Could the UK 'afford' 5% defence spending AND ... on 12:08 - Feb 13 by J2BLUE |
Seems like a self important jackass.
So yes, he's doing a good job trying to be like Musk. |
I should point out that I rather dislike him. |  |
| |
| Could the UK 'afford' 5% defence spending AND ... on 12:16 - Feb 13 with 1211 views | NthQldITFC |
| Could the UK 'afford' 5% defence spending AND ... on 11:45 - Feb 13 by J2BLUE |
We could if we had a wealth tax...
To put the wealth of individuals ahead of national security is incredible. No one needs hundreds of millions/billions. |
As you say no-one needs that sort of excessive wealth, and by having it, by acquiring it, by using every means to hang onto it and by driving others to compete and aspire to it, they are arguably directly responsible for the suffering of others, the breakdown of what was once looking like a promising society and for the destruction of the environment.
I saw or heard a quote somewhere the other day, can't remember where:
'we are a society riddled with avoidable injustice'
also 'we used to have communities and now we just have stuff.'
I have no problem with increased defence spending if it is to defend society and people and freedom, but it should never be about profits for arms companies and defending the corporate cancer that destroys our planet. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Could the UK 'afford' 5% defence spending AND ... on 12:17 - Feb 13 with 1203 views | Bent_double |
| Could the UK 'afford' 5% defence spending AND ... on 11:45 - Feb 13 by J2BLUE |
We could if we had a wealth tax...
To put the wealth of individuals ahead of national security is incredible. No one needs hundreds of millions/billions. |
This. This. And this again.
Why are all parties, it seems, frightened, or unwilling to do this? I posted a link a few weeks ago from Dale Vince where he and other millionaires are practically begging the government to levy a 2% tax on individuals with assets of £10m or more.
It would raise billions, yet barely affect their wealth at all, and surely the general voting population would be for it? |  |
| |
| Could the UK 'afford' 5% defence spending AND ... on 12:26 - Feb 13 with 1175 views | Churchman |
| Could the UK 'afford' 5% defence spending AND ... on 11:22 - Feb 13 by OldFart71 |
I think it's all about making it viable for businesses to invest. Take the AstraZeneca situation where they have pulled out of a £750 million building of an R & D developement due to promises made by the Tories and now broken by Labour. But it really boils down to whether these companies put corporate greed ahead of spending. An instance I was made aware of was at a local Tesco where they had most of the trolleys used by disabled people broken down. When questioned why they were not being repaired the answer was because the cost would affect bonuses paid to managers. On the question of making things viable and allowing business to expand and Labour proclaiming they want to build the economy the recent budget where N.I. was increased it has the reverse effect as all they will do to protect themselves is to cut back on projects, give staff fewer hours and put up prices. You only have to go into a supermarket these days and find 20 check outs with only one or two opened with queues of people with full trolleys waiting and moaning. |
Governments say one thing and do another. This government proclaimed it was after growth. A big old manifesto commitment. Yet it has done its very best to mallet business and depress growth and what you are left with is a Labour woman on Newsnight last night trying to defend the indefensible.
AZ is a good example. I presume the work will go to the Netherlands or somewhere along with the jobs, profits and taxes raised. Vauxhall Luton is another. Thanks the green zeal of Milliband, they’re off. Oh well just another 1500 on the dole plus the knock on effect to local business. Doesn’t matter - perhaps they’ll put a windmill on the roof of the derelict factory.
Just be honest about it - it was just words. The one thing they should have done is increase income tax which is at least progressive. But nope a ‘manifesto’ pledge. Ironically by turfing people onto the unemployment heap, it’ll be the poorest that bear that burden.
Now on to defence, in the 1970s when the economy was arguably in a bigger mess than it is now the U.K. was spending around 5% GDP peaking at 5.75% at the time of the Falklands war in 82. When the Wall comes down in the late 80s, the ‘peace dividend’ kicks in and the defence ‘well’ has been dipped into ever since. Some stats:
https://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_national_defence_analysis
Government spending splits are here:
https://obr.uk/forecasts-in-depth/brief-guides-and-explainers/public-finances/
It’s really a question of priorities. I happen to think defence and things like internal defence (policing and justice system) are important. Successive governments for years have not thought so (thanks - especially you Osborne, you dead eyed tool) and do not now..
The current commitment is to raise defence spending to a whopping 2.5% of GDP (half the figure of the 1970s and less than 25% of spending at the time of the Korean War when the country was literally bankrupt) when the economy allows. In other words never. It’s not a priority, just as it wasn’t in the run up to World War 2. |  | | |
| Could the UK 'afford' 5% defence spending AND ... on 13:01 - Feb 13 with 1112 views | Plums |
| Could the UK 'afford' 5% defence spending AND ... on 12:26 - Feb 13 by Churchman |
Governments say one thing and do another. This government proclaimed it was after growth. A big old manifesto commitment. Yet it has done its very best to mallet business and depress growth and what you are left with is a Labour woman on Newsnight last night trying to defend the indefensible.
AZ is a good example. I presume the work will go to the Netherlands or somewhere along with the jobs, profits and taxes raised. Vauxhall Luton is another. Thanks the green zeal of Milliband, they’re off. Oh well just another 1500 on the dole plus the knock on effect to local business. Doesn’t matter - perhaps they’ll put a windmill on the roof of the derelict factory.
Just be honest about it - it was just words. The one thing they should have done is increase income tax which is at least progressive. But nope a ‘manifesto’ pledge. Ironically by turfing people onto the unemployment heap, it’ll be the poorest that bear that burden.
Now on to defence, in the 1970s when the economy was arguably in a bigger mess than it is now the U.K. was spending around 5% GDP peaking at 5.75% at the time of the Falklands war in 82. When the Wall comes down in the late 80s, the ‘peace dividend’ kicks in and the defence ‘well’ has been dipped into ever since. Some stats:
https://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_national_defence_analysis
Government spending splits are here:
https://obr.uk/forecasts-in-depth/brief-guides-and-explainers/public-finances/
It’s really a question of priorities. I happen to think defence and things like internal defence (policing and justice system) are important. Successive governments for years have not thought so (thanks - especially you Osborne, you dead eyed tool) and do not now..
The current commitment is to raise defence spending to a whopping 2.5% of GDP (half the figure of the 1970s and less than 25% of spending at the time of the Korean War when the country was literally bankrupt) when the economy allows. In other words never. It’s not a priority, just as it wasn’t in the run up to World War 2. |
Even with that spending peak around the Falklands, it meant the Task Force was assembled and supported by materiel and personnel dragged from stores, tips and every dark corner of the globe to make it work.
JFK said the 'time to fix the roof is when the sun is shining' - and he was correct.
The technical debt in our military is going to come back to bite us hard. We only just got away with it in '82 and we're in a far worse position now. |  |
| |
| Could the UK 'afford' 5% defence spending AND ... on 15:28 - Feb 13 with 940 views | Clapham_Junction |
Sounds like another Tax Dodger's Alliance.
Filing “extensive Freedom of Information requests" is definitely not going to waste millions of pounds of public money. |  | | |
| Could the UK 'afford' 5% defence spending AND ... on 15:41 - Feb 13 with 908 views | Pinewoodblue |
While Trump talks about Europe spending 5% of GDP on defence it is worth pointing out that in 2023, last year figure published, the US spent 3.4% of GDP on defence. |  |
| |
| Could the UK 'afford' 5% defence spending AND ... on 16:00 - Feb 13 with 869 views | bluejacko |
| Could the UK 'afford' 5% defence spending AND ... on 15:41 - Feb 13 by Pinewoodblue |
While Trump talks about Europe spending 5% of GDP on defence it is worth pointing out that in 2023, last year figure published, the US spent 3.4% of GDP on defence. |
3% has got to be the optimum spend! Unlike most European forces that are mostly committed to NATO the US is spending 3% but doesn’t commit all its forces to NATO, so it could be argued they are not spending as much as us on European defence! | | | |
| Could the UK 'afford' 5% defence spending AND ... on 21:06 - Feb 13 with 723 views | TractorWood |
| Could the UK 'afford' 5% defence spending AND ... on 12:26 - Feb 13 by Churchman |
Governments say one thing and do another. This government proclaimed it was after growth. A big old manifesto commitment. Yet it has done its very best to mallet business and depress growth and what you are left with is a Labour woman on Newsnight last night trying to defend the indefensible.
AZ is a good example. I presume the work will go to the Netherlands or somewhere along with the jobs, profits and taxes raised. Vauxhall Luton is another. Thanks the green zeal of Milliband, they’re off. Oh well just another 1500 on the dole plus the knock on effect to local business. Doesn’t matter - perhaps they’ll put a windmill on the roof of the derelict factory.
Just be honest about it - it was just words. The one thing they should have done is increase income tax which is at least progressive. But nope a ‘manifesto’ pledge. Ironically by turfing people onto the unemployment heap, it’ll be the poorest that bear that burden.
Now on to defence, in the 1970s when the economy was arguably in a bigger mess than it is now the U.K. was spending around 5% GDP peaking at 5.75% at the time of the Falklands war in 82. When the Wall comes down in the late 80s, the ‘peace dividend’ kicks in and the defence ‘well’ has been dipped into ever since. Some stats:
https://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_national_defence_analysis
Government spending splits are here:
https://obr.uk/forecasts-in-depth/brief-guides-and-explainers/public-finances/
It’s really a question of priorities. I happen to think defence and things like internal defence (policing and justice system) are important. Successive governments for years have not thought so (thanks - especially you Osborne, you dead eyed tool) and do not now..
The current commitment is to raise defence spending to a whopping 2.5% of GDP (half the figure of the 1970s and less than 25% of spending at the time of the Korean War when the country was literally bankrupt) when the economy allows. In other words never. It’s not a priority, just as it wasn’t in the run up to World War 2. |
A Gov cannot be be pro growth if it makes it 2.5% more expensive to hire people from 06/04/25 with reduced LEL and 15% NI.
Any taxes raised will be spent on infrastructure that won't be ready for 10 years. Ie EWR rail, Heathrow runway 3 etc.
What Labour actually mean is that they are pro complex, long term projects and big state spending funded through taxing business precisely enough that they don't go out business and individuals just enough that they don't bin their jobs.
Tories we're bad too but at least they were so wrapped up in their own incompetence that they never actually got far enough to make decisions. [Post edited 13 Feb 21:07]
|  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
