‘Simply grotesque’: Stop the War responds to Starmer’s defence review
Share this post:
Arms manufacturers will be the only winners from Keir Starmers “grotesque” defence spending review, according to anti-war campaigners.
Responding to the government’s defence spending review, Stop the War vice chair Chris Nineham told Vox Political:
“Increasing defence spending to up to three per cent of GDP, procuring more and more weapons of war, including the commissioning of 12 new attack submarines, investing £1.5 billion for more munitions factories and £15b for nuclear weapons production, and all the while slashing welfare, is simply grotesque.”
Just click on the image, make your donation,
and provide your details!
He said: “Keir Starmer, John Healey and the Ministry of Defence have spent the days before the release of this spending review painting a picture of the most heightened military and security threat since the end of the cold war.
“They say they want the UK to move to ‘war-fighting readiness’, but talking up a new era of threat while tying an ailing economy even more to military production only makes the threat of war more likely.
“The reality is that Russia’s economy is roughly the size of Spain and Putin is vastly outnumbered militarily by NATO powers.
“He has barely occupied 18 per cent of Ukraine and poses no threat to Warsaw or Berlin, let alone London.”
Mr Nineham said: “The pledges in this review are even more grotesque given the eye-watering record profits being made by the arms manufacturers and their shareholders as a result of the endless conflicts which are only perpetuated by these levels of increased defence spending – paid for with our tax pounds and by slashing the welfare budget.
“The claim that building more munitions factories and submarines will help British jobs should fool no one.
“As the Alternative Defence Review explains, military spending generates a smaller economic multiplier than any other public investments, meaning it generates less overall economic activity and fewer secondary benefits than spending on essential services and infrastructure.”
Get my free guide: “10 Political Lies You Were Sold This Decade” — just subscribe to our email list here:
👉 https://voxpoliticalonline.com
“Any big increase in spending, such as on housing and health, would have a more beneficial impact on the economy and create more jobs.
“Build new hospitals, schools and homes instead, because the security at home that the government talks of is created by ensuring people have a roof over their heads, decent education and access to good healthcare – not by creating an ever more dangerous world through this drive to militarism.”
Just click on the image, make your donation,
and provide your details!
“The only beneficiaries of this defence review will be the warmongers and the arms companies. They want wars to continue. It is not in any of our interests to do anything but oppose them.
“So we urge everyone who is able to join the #WelfareNotWarfare bloc at next Saturday’s People’s Assembly national demonstration to send a clear message to the government that this drive to war is not in our name.”
Share this post:
Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:
Be among the first to know what’s going on! Here are the ways to manage it:
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (bottom right of the home page). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical
3) Like the Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/VoxPolitical/
Join the Vox Political Facebook page.
4) You could even make Vox Political your homepage at http://voxpoliticalonline.com
5) Follow Vox Political writer Mike Sivier on BlueSky
6) Join the MeWe page at https://mewe.com/p-front/voxpolitical
7) Feel free to comment!
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.
Cruel Britannia is available
in either print or eBook format here:
The Livingstone Presumption is available
in either print or eBook format here:
Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:
The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:
Why increase military spending?
One very obvious reason is that it stimulates the economy but does not re-distribute wealth. Ordinary people do not benefit from what is produced. That is why it is so attractive to elites.
If you spent the money on housing, by contrast, landlords would probably lose income due to the increased housing supply.
Spot on. That’s exactly the point: defence spending keeps money circulating at the top, in the hands of arms firms and investors. It doesn’t put roofs over heads, cut NHS waiting times, or tackle inequality.
As you say, public investment in housing or healthcare redistributes wealth downwards — and that’s what certain elites want to avoid. That’s why “security” becomes an excuse for militarism.
And the public pays the price — both in cuts to services and in an increased risk of war. #WelfareNotWarfare
Recently the UN Security Council attempted to decree a Chapter VII ultimatum which dictated that Israel surrender to Hamas in Gaza.
Italy did not support the recent UN Security Council resolution that called for an immediate and permanent ceasefire in Gaza, which was vetoed by the United States. The resolution received 14 votes in favor, with the U.S. casting the only vote against it. The draft resolution was co-sponsored by several countries, but Italy was not listed among those actively supporting the resolution in the context of the recent vote.
These 14 countries Russia, China, France, United Kingdom, Algeria (co-sponsor), Denmark (co-sponsor), Greece (co-sponsor), Guyana (co-sponsor), Pakistan (co-sponsor), Panama (co-sponsor), South Korea (co-sponsor), Sierra Leone (co-sponsor), Slovenia (co-sponsor), and Somalia (co-sponsor) voted to impose a UN Chapter VII dictate upon Israel. Of these countries Algeria and other scamps countries do not even have diplomatic relations with Israel.
Neither Iran nor Sudan have diplomatic relations with Israel. No different than Algeria. Algeria and Turkey have developed a military partnership and cooperation over the years, particularly in the areas of defense and security. This relationship has been strengthened through various agreements and joint military exercises. The relationship is part of a broader strategic partnership that includes economic and political cooperation, with both countries sharing interests in regional stability and security.
Those 14 countries have already repeatedly called for international condemnation of Israel, rabidly support Palestinian terrorism relabeled as “Palestinian rights”. They already engage in public relations propaganda campaigns hostile to Israel. They already support and initiate legal actions against Israel in international courts such as the ICC. These countries have escalated their rhetoric propaganda against Israel. Hamas could never have dug its complex tunnel system without international support. They already promote cultural and academic boycotts of Israel.
These countries throw their support for the Palestinian cause, like whores on street corners sell their wares. They often use stinky rhetoric, to condemn Israeli actions, framing them as oppressive or colonial. Such putrid rhetoric seeks to poison public opinion and mobilize support for Palestinian groups. Numerous solidarity movements around the world that advocate for Palestinian rights; they often align with groups like Hamas, viewing them as legitimate representatives of Palestinian resistance.
Countries without diplomatic relations with Israel compare to corrupt judges that accepts bribes. This objection, seeks to raise critically important questions about the legitimacy and fairness of the recent Chapter VII UN ultimatum which demanded that Israel surrender to Hamas in Gaza. While the analogy of a corrupt judge highlights concerns about bias and fairness, the international system, in point of fact, operates on principles of representation and sovereignty.
The International system operates, so it appears, as something akin to a beauty contest. What defines beauty — not a rational logical concept. Israel demands a change to the International system. It could express its rebuke of the UN, by leaving the UN. The analogy of a corrupt judge suggests that countries without diplomatic relations with Israel, that they lack objective credibility to fairly judge the case heard before the court of international opinion.
This perception of bias, Israel argues, undermines the legitimacy of all UN resolutions or demands made against Israel. Particularly since nations who do not have diplomatic relations with Israel obvious their anti-Israel hostility – politically motivated – rather than based on objective criteria. Chapter VII of the UN Charter allows the Security Council to take action to maintain or restore international peace and security. However, the application of this chapter, like as in the Korean war, especially when it appears to favor one side over another in a conflict, historically expands the local conflict into a far larger international war. The call for Israel to surrender to Hamas, obviously viewed by both the US and Israel as an ultimatum that lacks balance and fairness. Just as China despised the UN Chapter VII ultimatum decreed against North Korea.
The international UN system, indeed based on principles of state sovereignty and representation. However, the effectiveness and fairness of this system both the US and Israel have repeatedly warned and challenged. Especially when certain countries dominate decision-making processes or when resolutions reflect geopolitical interests rather than universal principles of justice.
The idea that Israel should demand changes to the international UN system, this demand reflects the Israeli requirements for a more equitable and fair approach to international relations expressed through public UN diplomacy organs. Leaving the UN perhaps a radical step. But it raises questions about the effectiveness of the international UN system of public diplomacy among nation states in the world community of nations.
The concerns about bias and fairness in the international UN system, particularly regarding Israel, absolutely valid and reflect broader issues of representation and legitimacy. Whether through reforming the UN or reconsidering its participation, Israel’s approach to these challenges will significantly impact its international standing and relationships. The debate over the effectiveness and fairness of the current international system remains a fixed constant, critical issue in global politics.
Thanks for your comment — I can see you’re passionate about international affairs and the UN’s handling of the Gaza situation. However, this post is specifically about the UK’s domestic defence strategy under Keir Starmer — particularly the prioritisation of arms spending over welfare, housing, and healthcare.
Whether or not one agrees with the UN’s approach, it doesn’t change the core concern raised here: is the UK becoming more militarised at the expense of its own people’s wellbeing? That’s the debate we’re trying to have.
Happy to discuss that further if you’ve got views on the UK budget or Starmer’s direction.
I’d also ask that we keep the conversation respectful. Language like “whores” or “stinky rhetoric” doesn’t help any serious political discussion.
Mike, had the US Trump Administration not vetoed this recent Chapter VII – as opposed to UN written 242 by Britain and France two-state solution imperialism, consequent to LBJ’s war in Vietnam – Britain would have found itself in another Korean War invasion of Israel. Hence: the core concern raised here: is the UK becoming more militarised at the expense of its own people’s wellbeing? That’s the debate we’re trying to have … my address concerning the British and French betrayal, (Equal to the 1939 White Paper wherein that blood PM Chamberlain betrayed the Balfour Declaration upon which the League of Nations awarded the Palestine Mandate in 1922 to England.), of the alliance Britain, prior to Brexit, cut with Israel when the EU permitted Israel to join the EU/Europe voting block of the EU because the Arab States of the Middle East refused to acknowledge Israel as a member of the Middle East UN voting block.
This betrayal by both Britain and France of Israel, had the Trump Administration not vetoed it when all other 14 countries sitting in the UN Security Council vote voted to issue a chapter VIII ultimatum to Israel to surrender immediately to Hamas, Britain would have found itself in a war with Israel.
I appreciate the detailed historical perspective, though I think we’re approaching this from very different angles.
The article is focused on the UK government’s decision to divert billions into weapons and military production — while slashing welfare and underfunding housing, education and health. Whether one supports Israel or not, the question remains:
Should our economy be reshaped around military industry when so many domestic needs are unmet?
That’s the concern raised by Stop the War — and one I think deserves more attention in the current political debate.
Mike if England and France employ the UN Security Council as did President Truman, then it will most definitely “reshape the economy around the military industrial complex. Domestic priorities will become secondary matters of public expense.
I think we may be talking past each other now. My focus is on what this government’s spending choices mean for people here — housing, welfare, healthcare — and whether military expansion should come at their expense. That’s the debate I believe we need.
As an Israeli, the threat of fighting a war with England and France represents a horror story.
If you’re concerned about horror stories, perhaps you could comment on this one: Israel just seized a humanitarian aid ship bound for Gaza — in international waters. I’ve covered it here. Why not go to that article’s comment column and give us your view on your country’s actions?
is the UK becoming more militarised at the expense of its own people’s wellbeing? That’s the debate we’re trying to have.
Had President Trump not stood against the 14 other sitting States in the UN Security Council with voted for the Chapter VII dictate that Israel immediately surrender to Hamas, Britain would have found itself in another war against Israel, like it was in the Chapter VII UN ultimatum issued to North Korea.
Whatever one’s view of UN diplomacy, it’s a big leap to suggest Britain was on the brink of war with Israel.
The point here is simpler: billions are being diverted to weapons and arms deals, while welfare, housing, and public services suffer. That’s what the defence review means for people in the UK right now — and it’s what we should be debating.