You don’t need me to tell you that the defence secretary quit last week because of the reluctance of Keir Starmer to fund defence properly.
Opposition parties have naturally suggested raiding the bloated welfare budget to find the money needed to protect the UK adequately. But what about cancelling Net Zero instead (or as well!), which could save the Government hundreds of billions?
Currently we are spending £65 billion a year on defence, which is equivalent to 2.5% of GDP, (under the NATO definition of what should be included, which is slightly more than just MOD spending). This figure is due to rise to 2.6% next year, as was laid out in the November 2025 Budget.
Last year, the Strategic Defence Review was commissioned to set a 10-year vision of how to transform our Armed Forces and the technology they are equipped with. According to John Healey, the Treasury was only prepared to increase the already budgeted 2.6% to 2.68% in 2030 – effectively an extra £2 billion a year.
Healey insisted in his resignation letter that defence spending must be increased to 3% of GDP by 2030. There must also be a clear path to meet the NATO commitment to spend 3.5% of GDP in 2035, something which the PM had already agreed to. The latter target would mean increasing defence spending from today’s levels by £26 billion a year.
Which brings us on to how much the Government is planning to spend on
Discussion
Comments
This week across the site:
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to the Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
The Net Zero Insanity is how the Establishment intends to permanently shackle us to the EU and eventually drag us back in.
The Prime Liar’s “negotiating skills” mean that we will be subsidising French consumers’ energy bills in order to balance the grid because the morons in the Dept for Expensive and Intermittent Energy have commissioned, and massively subsidised, far too many occasionally useful windmills and the grid can’t cope when it gets very windy.
We are not allowed to be energy independent.
Oh, and Red Ed will need a new, and highly lucrative, career in the Globalist Eco Quangocracy when he leaves (or is kicked out of) Parliament – so he’s not going to back down.
This list exposes the idiocy of the net zero arguments of Milibrain, May, Hohn and the rest of the cult leaders in both the Government and the opposition. If changes to my gas supply to my house make economic sense, I would choose to do them without the need for subsidy. Even funding the debt I incur would make sense, because the lender would see that my savings in the cost of gas would pay for the loan. But the economic argument cannot be made, so the charlatans have to try and bribe me, but still it would not make sense.
The same as electric charging points. When the ICE first replaced the horse and cart and then allowed people to choose between buses, railways or cars on mass, did the Government build a network of petrol stations or did the free market? So why are the Government and local councils (such as Manchester, who employ Andy Burnham’s wife to deliver charging points, for which she seems to have no prior business experience), paying for the charging points to be installed? Why is it not solely attractive to an unsubsidised free market?
The graph showing significant decline in the cost of “net zero” over time has got to be an utter fantasy/fabrication. There’s no way that we will not continue to need backups to unreliable electricity generation. We will probably need MORE of them, not less, as gas and petrol/diesel power contribution is reduced.
Daily sceptic team, I have a Net Zero experience that I think would make a very useful article for Paul or Chris Morrison or Ben Pile, I do not wish to put the details here, but have all the information and facts to hand if you can inform me as to how to send to one or all of the aforementioned.
Thank you
DS team can be reached on [email protected]
The contracts for upgrades of the local street electricity mains to the meter have been let and the blokes who did my house said it was costing £4500 per house. There are going to be about 30 million houses to connect plus substations.Thats more like £5 billion per year for 25 years.
The national grid upgrades is additional.
The smart meters are being replaced too at £400 per house. The CCC figure ridiculous.
In the light of the Ukraine and Iran wars it seems clear that the present western procurement system is completely inadequate. Expensive equipment is inadequate against drone warfare. The American naval fleet is too scared to go close to Iran for fear of being sunk by hypersonic missiles. Against the Russians they would have no chance. But why interrupt these people when so much money can be made by keeping a lost cause going.
“It really is a no brainer, isn’t it?”
Says it all very clearly.
There is, indeed, not a single working brain cell in the entire Cabinet.
Yes! The latest cry is that net zero will make Britain energy independent.
Anything less likely to make us energy independent would be hard to imagine.
Government net zero objectives are the reason why we currently import most of our oil and gas from Norway, derived from oil and gas fields adjacent to Britain’s own Exclusive Economic Zone.
We now import 15% of our electricity from France, a major reason why Macron has so much leverage on our foreign and domestic policies:
‘An official at the Elysee Palace, Mr Macron’s official residence, told French newspaper Liberation: “We had to make a clear threat so that he would finally budge.”..French insistence that the UK tighten its restrictions was apparently accompanied by an additional warning that other EU countries would also close their borders to Britain.’ March 2020
This is what net zero is really about:
‘Just and fair transition. Just Transition Fund to invest in diversifying economies and re-skilling workers in vulnerable regions
Social Climate Fund helps vulnerable households with energy efficiency, clean heating, and transport
EU Solidarity Fund and EU Civil Protection Mechanism supported countries in Europe and beyond when struck by climate-related emergencies
Carbon pricing and industrial reform. Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) that encourages industries worldwide to embrace greener production methods, should be fully operational by 2026
Strategic Dialogue on the Future of EU Agriculture, inclusive process shaping future food systems’
‘The European Green Deal Striving to be the first climate-neutral continent’ 2019
You forgot to mention that almost everyone will become poverty stricken in the process.
Nice numbers, but just a start, Scrap net zero and see the multipler effect kick in. A bigger, growing economy has more room for defence, and everything else.
Keep mocking the net zero stupids, skeptiks. Smile indulgently or laugh out loud, as situations allow. People crave approval and fear ridicule.
We need to spend more, and we need to spend much more wisely.
MoD is a paragon of incompetece, stupidity and inefficiency.
This has to change.
So please tell me why Burnham is in the lead in Makerfield.
Because everyone wants to get rid of Starmer.
Don’t interrupt them…
but, Maxibad might beat Burnham.
He’ll be in Dunces Lane alright…No11…
What doesn’t kill you makes you stronger…as long as it really doesn’t kill you…
Democracy: the least worst form of government.
Because dear Rupert is going to give him the job. Can’t let that little claimed position of saving the country get in the way of his grudge.
His grudge is somewhat justified but as you say he should put the country first. He is a very stubborn man which is probably why he fell out with reform. He should do a deal with reform.
Indeed I’m sure there was a clash of personalities and a dirty fallout, but thats politics.
The shame is Rupert has demonstrated he’s just as arrogant and not really interested in the the task at hand. His party has taken the Uniparty position of trawling Reform candidates distant past social media posts now, and their go to line on the doorstep is that the Reform candidate said some mean things about women online 15 years ago, not that violent immigrants are a danger to them.
Because the vast majority of the electorate aren’t in the least bit interested in politics and couldn’t identify a strategy if one was spelled out for them.
They just want rid of the Prime Liar …..