When Rachel Reeves delivers the first Budget by a Labour Chancellor in 15 years, she will do so against the backdrop of a £22bn ‘black hole’ and with media reports suggesting that £40bn in spending cuts and tax rises are being targeted. While the foundations for the announcements have been laid for much of this year, this is the first chance for the new government to put their money where their mouth is, literally.
The scale of both the financial and social challenges facing the new Government is clear. During the General Election campaign the Institute for Fiscal Studies identified the coming shortfall in public spending, accusing both main parties of a “conspiracy of silence” over tax and spending plans in their manifestos – saying that choices had been “hidden or ducked”.
Meanwhile, public services are on their knees after 14 years of austerity and under-investment. NHS waiting lists are at record levels; schools are crumbling and facing budget cuts; poverty continues to blight our communities, with over 10,000 more children in poverty since the election; and around the world the climate crisis continues threaten our very way of life.
In the Spring Budget earlier this year, then Chancellor Jeremy Hunt revealed that UK military spending had reached £54.2bn for the financial year 2023-24. That means that we have been spending £100,000 a minute on the military. Core military spending is 4.8 times the budget for the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office – which includes overseas aid – and 7.2 times the budget of the Department of Energy Security and Net Zero – which includes climate-related spending.
The government continues to fail to meet the UN target on overseas aid, while climate spending also remains inadequate. The UK has a target to reduce carbon emissions by of 68% by 2030 (based on 1990 levels), and it is off target. If the UK were to reduce emissions by its ‘fair share’, it would have a target of about 90% reductions by 2030 (from the 2020 level). This is against the backdrop of a global climate crisis where the global carbon budget to keep temperature below 1.5C (with a 67% probability) will, at current rates, run out in 2027.
There has been much talk since the election of ‘tough choices’. The government has decided to take the Winter Fuel Allowance away from the majority of pensioners at the same time as energy prices increase by 10%. It has decided to retain the two-child benefit cap, despite the evidence that removing it will lift 100,000 children out of poverty. Climate spending plans have also been cut back. Yet there is no sign of the military budget facing similar choices. The UK is already the sixth highest military spender in the world and has one of the world’s most heavily armed militaries – so why should our spending be increased any further?
Figures from the MoD indicate a shortfall of £16.9 billion in funding for the latest 10-year equipment spending plans, with the ever-expensive nuclear-weapons programme continuing to prove to be a money pit. Do we really need to spend around £200 billion on a new generation of nuclear weapons, when the deterrence doctrine this system is based upon is so flawed? Do we need to retain such a heavily armed military with ‘global reach’ for the foreseeable future? Can we afford to keep spending so much on our armed forces when tackling poverty, ill-health and the climate crisis are so urgent? These are the difficult questions it is time to ask as a country.
We need to have a national conversation about what ‘security’ means. Are we made safer by spending billions of pounds on the military, with an increasing nuclear weapons stockpile capable of destroying the world many times over? Or by providing decent homes, secure, well-paid jobs, alleviating poverty and mitigating the effects of the climate crisis? A recent report from Rethinking Security showed that the majority of people prefer a security definition based on the latter.
Next year it will be ten years since the United Nations set 17 targets – the UN Sustainable Development Goals – including the elimination of poverty and hunger, and urgent action on climate change. Progress on these targets is faltering – and in some cases being reversed – due to a lack of resources. Meanwhile, global military spending is spiralling upwards. Arms races fuel insecurity and increase the risk of war. We need to put the brakes on. Instead, we need to redirect spending to tackling the roots of insecurity – like poverty and ecological damage. We need to defuse international tensions, by focusing more on diplomacy, peace-building, arms control, and disarmament. The new Labour government could play a leading role in bringing about a positive future – or it can continue down the road of militarism and war. It’s time to choose.
Source: Labour Outlook