BOMBSHELL Drops On Keir Starmer's Dire Defence Plans!

Right, so despite issues such as the cost of living crisis, disability benefit cuts and cuts to the winter fuel allowance being what came up on the doorstep leading to Labour’s record breaking losses during last months local elections, where they lost 65% of those seats they were defending, Keir Starmer is relentlessly ignoring all of that in pursuit of yet more defence spending, a dramatic escalation of defence spending. Framing it as essential to national security and putting on a snake oil salesman pitch of economic growth, Starmer is set to increase defence spending by £1.5billion whilst telling us all of course there is no money left and cuts are essential, pushing what is now a £6 billion package of military investment during this parliamentary term. Yet this has little to do with defending the nation. It’s about image, legacy, and politics. Starmer is desperately chasing a "Falklands Moment" — a decisive military pivot to boost political fortunes, it worked for Thatcher, it might work for him — so this is a desperate attempt to portray himself as a wartime leader. But Britain is not at war, and the greatest threats we face are not military, but economic, social, and environmental and if there truly is any kind of military danger to us right now, its Starmer’s mouth against more powerful nations, writing the proverbial cheques this country can’t cash.
Right, so the military obsessions of Cosplay Keith means the magic money tree has had a damned good shaking, Starmer unveiling plans to pour an additional £1.5 billion into weapons upgrades and military infrastructure — specifically, six new weapons and the construction of more explosives factories. Announced in The Murdoch Scum, because when doesn’t Starmer kiss Rupert’s ring and scribble for that hateful rag, he has claimed this is necessary because the UK was “under growing threat”. But the nature of this threat is deeply ambiguous. There has been no credible suggestion that the UK is facing imminent invasion or attack whatsoever, but sure the preparedness argument will be made by some.
The main justification for the ramp-up is the Russia-Ukraine conflict — a war where Britain is supposedly not a direct involved, but has been far more so than we have had any business in being and any military shenanigans aside, this country, despite having no money for helping ordinary people as life becomes ever harder, wages stagnate and become devalued as the cost of everything rises, at least £8 billion in aid has been handed to Ukraine since Starmer took office and for the first several months this was working out at £1 billion a month nearly. His government has used the war to justify everything from energy policy to defence spending, casting Russia as a shadowy, ever-present menace, ignoring the fact Ukraine was turned into a US proxy following a 2014 coup and that this action pushed the borders of NATO to sitting on Russia’s doorstep. The reasons that war came about is not all one sided. This has by this point though created an atmosphere of heightened anxiety that suits Starmer’s hawkish image-making, so it must be asked: is this policy about protecting the UK, or about enhancing Starmer’s own political legacy?
Lets strip away the justifications and euphemisms here. This £1.5 billion isn’t being spent to defend Britain. It’s being spent on offence: to build bombs, missiles, and military facilities. These new factories are not safeguarding schools or hospitals from hypothetical Russian incursions or vengeance strikes. They are preparing the UK for a future in which military aggression, not diplomacy, is the preferred language of the state, because Starmer thinks it will give him a boost and he does love to play dress up.
And while Starmer claims these investments will create jobs and boost growth, there’s little evidence to support this. According to the campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, the CND, increasing military spending has no measurable impact on the economy. Most modern defence projects are highly capital-intensive and high tech with it, so they employ few workers ergo they create comparatively few job opportunities. The UK defence sector, even when accounting for supply chains, supports only around 200,000 jobs nationwide— a tiny fraction of the total workforce. Oxford Economics tried to argue last year in a report they produced for the MoD that military investment could drive prosperity, but as Action on Armed Violence, the AOAV have noted, the report overestimated job creation and failed to account for opportunity costs. When compared to green energy or public infrastructure, defence spending ranks poorly in terms of both job creation and long-term economic benefit.
Starmer claims that increased defence spending will help boost the economy. This isn’t actually entirely false —public investment in defence can stimulate growth. But it depends entirely on how the money is spent.
For example, defence spending can contribute to growth only when tied to research and development, R&D because this often comes with broader economic applications. Technological innovation from military R&D — such as sustainable materials, low-emission vehicles, or advanced telecommunications — can obviously spill over into other civilian sectors. However, Starmer’s plan is not focused on R&D. It’s focused on munitions. Bullets and bombs are consumables, not assets. They create no productive infrastructure and generate no long-term returns. In fact, the first 60 days of Israel’s assault on Gaza emitted more CO₂ than burning 150,000 tons of coal — a stark reminder that war not only destroys lives and is not just economically costly, but its also environmentally catastrophic so the costs associated with that, with the damage caused are not being factored in here either.
Moreover, such spending requires massive upfront government investment, often leading to increased borrowing or cuts elsewhere. In this case, the money for defence appears to come from simultaneous reductions in foreign aid, disability benefits, and green industrial development. Where we could invest in humanitarian efforts, Starer opts for warmongering choices. Where disability cuts are a major concern that came up on the doorstep that saw Labour lose votes, they still aren’t getting the message, they simply don’t seem to care and as for Green industrial development, well what a surprise it gets cut by a government and a leader who care nothing for such major issues.
Starmer’s spending choices are rendered even more puzzling in light of Labour’s self-imposed fiscal rules. Chancellor Rachel Reeves has tied the government’s hands with a strict set of constraints on borrowing and spending — making it nearly impossible to fund bold programs for health, education, or green energy. Yet somehow, £1.5 billion more has been “found” for military expansion, the fiscal rules don’t apply when they don’t want them to. Such skewed and hypocritical priorities are fiscally incoherent, par for the course for Rachel From Accounts, suggesting that political posturing is driving decision-making far more than any economic rationale despite attempts to justify matters as such.
Starmer’s reluctance to speak plainly is another concern. His announcement was vague about timelines, offering no clear schedule for when the new factories would be operational or when the jobs would materialise. The vagueness suggests this may be more about optics than ever actually delivering even if it costs ordinary people their benefits, their wage top ups, their disability support in the short term.
Equally troubling is Starmer’s hypocrisy when it comes to war and humanitarianism, something even those supportive of this defence spending have trouble swallowing. He has been vocally critical of Russia’s war in Ukraine yet he refuses to condemn Israel’s ongoing atrocities in Gaza, which are a genocide. He can criticise one side in an actual war, but can’t even call a genocide of 2 million civilians such, because of his pro Israel leanings. His government instead mulls over cut to humanitarian aid to fund defence spending, even as it sends new shipments of arms to the Israeli regime and continues to conduct surveillance for them. This moral inconsistency undermines his foreign policy and contributes to international instability. It also speaks volumes about whose lives this government values, and whose it does not.
Across Europe, military spending has historically been a poor engine for growth. Countries that have heavily militarised — especially without a strategic R&D component — have experienced limited economic return. Economists point out that any growth generated tends to be slow, expensive, and unequally distributed, which is a novel way of basically saying the shareholders make a killing, but nobody else sees a whisker of it. The benefits of defence spending accrue primarily to arms manufacturers and their shareholders — entities that already benefit from tax exemptions and massive government subsidies. As arms company profits grow, they are effectively taxed at far lower rates than ordinary income, further starving the Treasury of revenue.
Even if we accept the premise that defence spending creates jobs, the link between military investment and employment is growing weaker. High-tech defence systems require fewer workers than traditional manufacturing, and many defence contractors rely heavily on automation. Defence investments are unlikely to deliver broad employment gains and as I mentioned a moment ago, it’s a very small proportion of the workforce already. Instead, it is actually more likely that we will face tax increases to fund Starmer’s plans, with little likely return — par for the course in a nation where millions already cannot afford food, housing, or heat, just kick ordinary working people still harder, they might be called Labour but there’s nothing for working class people in that party anymore.
If the government were truly interested in national security, it would focus on what actually threatens the UK public: poverty, inequality, the climate crisis, and a crumbling healthcare system. Investing in green energy, sustainable transport, housing, and education would create far more jobs and generate meaningful long-term economic growth. Defence spending doesn’t raise living standards — all of those other issues when dealt with as they need to be very much would. They don’t let Starmer raid the dressing up box for his military fatigues though do they? It also aligns with Britain’s international obligations on climate and sustainable development, obligations Starmer’s government currently seems set on gutting in favour of building bomb factories.
And while the UK must remain vigilant in a changing geopolitical landscape, real security does not come from military hardware alone. It comes from resilient institutions, social stability, economic justice, and international cooperation — none of which are served by pouring billions into explosives.
Keir Starmer's defence agenda is not grounded in necessity, strategy, or economic pragmatism. It is rooted in desperation — a flailing attempt to seize control of a political narrative slipping further and further away and present himself as a strong leader. But the British public is not calling for more weapons. On the doorstep, they are calling for affordable housing, decent healthcare, and economic stability.
Instead of answering those calls, Starmer is stoking fear, militarising the economy, and funding his ambitions by cutting support to the most vulnerable. His claim that this will boost the economy is not only misleading but deeply cynical. This is not a path to prosperity. It is a costly detour — one that will leave Britain poorer, more divided, and more exposed to the real challenges of the future, growing more desperate for change that Starmer promised and yet flatly refuses to now deliver.
The real threat is not Russia. It is not China. It is not Iran. The real threat, increasingly, is a political class that refuses to listen, a Prime Minister chasing ghosts of wartime grandeur while real people suffer. It is time for the public to challenge this misguided agenda — and demand an economy, and a society, built not on fear, but on fairness in the interests of ordinary working class people and not for craven politicians and shareholders more interested in destroying lives than rebuilding them.
For those attempting to call Starmer out, especially when it comes to that matter of Israel and Gaza though, well, the Terrorism Act is there to be weaponised against journalists and activists alike, but there’s been a win against Starmer on this front too and with any luck it’ll now set a precedent. Get all the details of that story in this video recommendation here as your suggested next watch.
Please do also hit like, share and subscribe if you haven’t done so already so as to ensure you don’t miss out on all new daily content as well as spreading the word and helping to support the channel at the same time which is very much appreciated, holding power to account for ordinary working class people and I will hopefully catch you on the next vid. Cheers folks