Starmer announces more weapons for Ukraine but there's no money left?

Right, so a lot of people ahead of the General Election, whilst surmising what a Keir Starmer led Labour government might look like, and especially with the Tony Blair comparisons being bandied about for as long as they had been, encouraged no doubt by Blairite phantom turned Jeffrey Epstein’s shopping buddy Peter Mandelson haunting proceedings from the shadows. Invariably that comparison turned to one of warfare. Blair will be forever defined by the Iraq War, so perhaps it’s a sign of things to come, that it is a particularly telling course of action that despite being told repeatedly that there is no money left for Labour to put the country back together after 14 years of the Tories, that he earned that nickname Sir Kid Starver for refusing to do away with the two child benefit cap and keep kids in poverty, Starmer has still managed to find the money to put together a military aid package for Ukraine within days of taking power. He can find money for war, but not the poorest children, or frankly anything else you care to think of, that there is apparently no money left for.
Right, so that was Darren Jones, Chief Secretary to the Treasury, talking about not being left a note by the Tories saying there is no money left, by quipping perhaps they couldn’t afford the note paper, discussing Rachel Reeves big speech today to lay out Labour’s plans to achieve growth, despite not investing any money in anything it seems, yet still she has announced plans to build 1.5m houses this parliament, but what type of housing will matter and where it is, the return of mandatory local housebuilding targets, which is great if she’s put the money in for local councils to deliver on it, relaxing planning restrictions on what she considers ugly parts of the green belt, is not what I want to hear, an end to de facto building of onshore wind farms, I have no issue with that, but again how is it being financed? A new planning policy framework to come, will judge that on it’s merits when it appears. How is all this being paid for is still the outstanding question really, it’s also not anything that hasn’t been mentioned previously.
The question of how Labour is going to pay for stuff looms large, especially in light of the fact they keep saying they aren’t going to spend big because there is no money left. If they weren’t refusing to tax the rich, they would be free to print more money, the adage of bankrupting the nation and there being no money left is a false one, when the Bank of England simply has to type numbers into a computer and voila, new money is born. Taxation is a brake on inflation that allows governments to do that, so claims of not being able to afford this, that or the other is also false, and Labour singing from the same hymn sheet as the Tories on that, doesn’t show a dramatic shift from their way of ruining the country, to Labour doing little different or little better. The primary example of that, the policy area that did come up often in the General Election campaign, was the two child benefit cap policy. A cruel, penny pinching measure the Tories brought in, supposedly to punish feckless parents for having kids they could not afford, but in reality, punishes the child in question and I don’t know about you, but I don’t accept punishing kids with policy measures. Darren Jones in another interview he did with Good Morning Britain said there is no money to do this. Former Scottish Labour leader Kezia Dugdale in a Sky News interview admitted that the pressure for Labour to act on this will be immense, but that Starmer and Reeves won’t do it, because they don’t want to send jitters through the market. Well God forbid the economy have jitters! Better keep starving those kids then!
Well it is all about choices isn’t it? Ending the two child benefit cap, would life 250,000 kids out of poverty, the policy applying to some 2 million kids right now. If it doesn’t happen, the IFS predict another 670,000 kids will be impacted by the policy, by the end of this new parliament. Ending this would cost £3.4bn a year. Sounds a lot, but Starmer and Reeves had no issue increasing defence spending from £54bn to £87bn across the duration of this parliament. That’s an addition 6.6bn a year. Why not halve that and scrap the cap? What are we defending if not the people of this country, therefore why leave so many in poverty by choice and the youngest in society at that?
It's just one example, taxing the rich again, we come back to that, would be another choice that could be made, people who don’t want for anything being made to pay a little more, well they still won’t want for anything, but the poorest kids will be lifted out of poverty.
But all of this precludes what Starmer and Reeves say about the public finances, their mantra about the damage the Tories have done to the public purse being true, yet if we can afford to give away cash and aid to other countries, the choice to let kids starve here becomes all the more stark and all the more unforgivable.
In light of that, what has Keir Starmer done with regards to Ukraine then and I’ll start with a tweet he has literally just put out at time of writing, which given what I’ve already said, is remarkably relevant. He posted images from a Ukrainian hospital saying:
‘Attacking innocent children. The most depraved of actions. We stand with Ukraine against Russian aggression - our support won’t falter.’
Nice that he cares so much about Ukrainian kids whilst leaving so many of ours in poverty I thought. I also won’t hold my breath that he’ll condemn Israel and post images of kids in a Gazan hospital whilst doing so either, but I’ll park that particular sentiment there on this occasion.
You see straight after the very first cabinet meeting, our new Defence Secretary, John Healey, was dispatched to Ukraine, literally day 2 of being in the job, to press the flesh with Zelenskyy, who didn’t even need to bring out his begging bowl this time. Here’s a Guardian excerpt:
‘New defence secretary John Healey announced a fresh British military aid package for Ukraine on Sunday as he visited the southern port city of Odesa and met with his counterpart Rustem Umerov.
The move is designed to reassure Ukraine and demonstrate to Moscow that UK military backing remains unchanged after last week’s change of government and ahead of this week’s Nato summit, where additional military help for Kyiv will be discussed.
Healey said “the UK is united for Ukraine” and the Labour minister promised to “reinvigorate Britain’s support by stepping up supplies of vital military aid”as part of an effort to help resist Russian aggression “for as long as it takes’’.
Britain will supply a quarter of a million large, 50 calibre rounds of ammunition, 10 of its AS-90 artillery guns, which have a theoretical range of up to 25km, and 90 Brimstone ground-attack, anti-tank missiles from its own stocks.
The Ministry of Defence said that Healey had immediately asked for extra support to be provided to Ukraine which was “readily available” and meets their “needs for the battlefield” as the war continues its third year.
Umerov said, on his Telegram channel, that he “highly appreciated” Healey’s visit given it was his second working day in the job and his first trip abroad.’
In addition to that, Declassified UK have stated that the aid package also includes 50 small military boats, 40 de-mining vehicles and 61 bulldozers. Peace talks and diplomacy cost less than more weapons for war, but equally, if we have the cash to send this lot to Ukraine, why are our kids still in poverty? I’m not even saying here actually that this is the choice that has to be made or should be made, though I question the form of aid we are sending to Ukraine, it certainly isn’t going to bring about an end to the war sending more arms, but it does illustrate the point I’ve been making since the beginning of this video and that is that our kids being kept in poverty is a choice. The money is there for weapons, but not for food for kids? Is that genuinely what Starmer’s Labour are saying, because it seems like it to me and if that is the case, how are they any different to the Tories they’ve just replaced? The party of the working class my foot.
So thusfar in Labour’s first few days in government they’ve declared kids can stay hungry but more aid can go to Ukraine, though that aid is basically bombs and bullets, our kids stay hungry to pay for that is one way this can be looked at. Closer ties with Israel have been announced despite them conducting themselves in Gaza like Russia has in Ukraine, so the politics of amoral hypocrisy writ large there and trashing the green belt if deemed to be ugly, in all likelihood, to benefit private housebuilders and developers, because Reeves won’t spend public money to invest, so who will those houses be for?
So far I’m so predictably disappointed. We deserve better than another 5 years of economic stagnation and feeling no better off and this very much seems to be the way things are heading, but don’t for one minute believe there is no money, because there always is.
Meanwhile here’s a video recommendation showing this move over arms to Ukraine is hardly Starmer’s first demonstration that he doesn’t want to lift kids out of poverty, nor has he wished to for quite some time, as his football fandom over the England Lionesses reaching the final of the Women’s World Cup last August, saw him call for a new bank holiday in their honour and them all to be made dames, which again, would have cost more than ending the two child benefit cap. But there’s no money left if you ask them now of course and I’ll hopefully catch you on the next vid. Cheers folks.