Defence Spending

[baggieal]

No surprise Labour dodged the question about where the money is coming from to meet the new defence spending target. Clearly they can not tax yet again those who are working or businesses without risking absolute outrage.

So surely the money should be found from cutting welfare payments, illegal immigration which will soon bankrupt the country or vastly reducing foreign aid ie Gaza and Ukraine where it can?t be a continuous bottomless pit.

I bet the Stacy Solomon sounding girl from Accounts is looking at our pensioners 😭

[baggieal]

Now John Healey the Defence Secretary has resigned blaming Starmer. If the focus was not on sending billions overseas, many millions on illegals and welfare benefits we would not be in this mess.

The riots are disgusting in Belfast but people have had enough! Failure to read the room yet again!

Cut overseas aid and to Ukraine too - give illegals zero benefits and cut welfare payments and then the target of defence could be met! But oh no - Rachel who loves her country in the Stacy Solomon voice will again tax those who are working. Really don?t blame those for sitting on their backsides if it?s not financially rewarding to work!

Worst PM in history and sadly Burnham will be worse!

[Omegstrat6]

Now John Healey the Defence Secretary has resigned blaming Starmer. If the focus was not on sending billions overseas, many millions on illegals and welfare benefits we would not be in this mess.

The riots are disgusting in Belfast but people have had enough! Failure to read the room yet again!

Cut overseas aid and to Ukraine too - give illegals zero benefits and cut welfare payments and then the target of defence could be met! But oh no - Rachel who loves her country in the Stacy Solomon voice will again tax those who are working. Really don?t blame those for sitting on their backsides if it?s not financially rewarding to work!

Worst PM in history and sadly Burnham will be worse!

Hi Al, hope you are enjoying your break in the US.

Burnham has just come out and said that he would "not be squeamish" about cutting the welfare bill. Whether or not this is just gab as means of aiding his ultimate bid for PM, I don't know.

The bottom line is that whilst Starmer has proven inept over too many things, Labour did inherit a poor economy with huge borrowing debts and growing inequality that can be mostly laid at the door of 14 years of Conservative government-and this includes the surge in illegal immigrants coming over the Channel and the continued erosion of defence spending.

However many people say that this is all in the past and Labour are in government now and it's their job to solve the problems, it remains the reality. You cannot turn things around in two years, particularly with the current global situation where both the wars in Ukraine and in the Middle East impact on the global economy and the current POTUS, who might be able to steady the ship, is a narcissistic grifter.

There is no money. Well, not sufficient. It's true that we spend far too much on illegal immigration but that money alone would not fund the needs in our defence spending and recouping it would surely be driven primarily by stopping the boats in the first place and fast tracking deportations which, in themselves, requires money.

As for further taxation, you are quite right that both businesses and individuals would be up in arms if this was considered and it would only make the current levels of both austerity and any opportunities for growth worse. This then means looking at the budgets for other areas. No-one would really want to take money from healthcare, education and housing for example and policing certainly needs an injection of funding. The ever growing benefits bill is therefore the obvious target to transfer money from. But there are complexities and nuances to this.

The problem for Starmer is that the welfare bill hopes to prevent the most vulnerable falling below the poverty line. The concern is for children and the elderly in particular. This is why the U-turn was made on the two child benefit cap because it wasn't about the feckless behaviour of some parents but about protecting the children themselves. Deterring the behaviour of some parents is one thing -and quite right-but how do you do so without putting the children at risk?

Of course there remain loopholes where far too many individuals fraudulently manage to get awards for PIP and other benefits but blunt instrument cuts will harm genuine claimants and targeted efforts to identify and punish those who put in false claims-which is what should be happening- takes more funding still. PIP, for example, remains far too easy to exploit whilst some in genuine need continue to miss out. A big part of any solution to this would be better trained assessors and far more of them but whilst this would surely save money long term, the money to fund these at the moment is not there. Similarly, the number of young people with post covid "mental health" problems is very clearly an issue which needs better support and assessment to help get them off benefits and into work but this costs money.

As for universal credit payments, the majority on those in receipt are working so these payments are needed to top up incomes where individuals either cannot get full time work or are on minimum wage. Moreover, the single biggest chunk of the growing benefits bill goes toward state pensions. There has already been a thread on this. As the number of pensioners increases while the number of those in work (and contributing) decreases, the state pension as it is cannot survive and this will surely shortly see the end of the Triple Lock. Take money for defence from the benefits bill and surely pensions will be one of the things impacted on.

People will inherently want to protect their own interests Al. To me there was nothing wrong when Starmer said that it was ridiculous that financial support for winter heating was given purely on the basis of age alone and that it should be means tested. (I feel similarly about prescriptions btw which is another enormous cost). Plenty of poorer pensioners relied on this payment, plenty of wealthier ones did not. As usual, Starmer got the mechanics wrong through using a cliff edge cut off point rather than a sliding scale, but remember the furore that this caused-all those well off pensioners who did not need this financial help saying that it was somehow their right to receive it?

The triple lock will ultimately not be financially sustainable but if Labour come out and state, for example, that it may move to only applying it to the state pensions of those who fall below a certain income, then I'm sure plenty of well off pensioners will moan about it being unfair and how hard they have worked etc. They will likely also be amongst the more vocal in wanting an increase in defence spending-but not if it comes out of their own pocket. Maybe I am being unfair, but I don't think so.

When Burnham speaks of "not being squeamish" with the welfare bill, maybe he means that he is entertaining more means-tested awards in order to help fund defence? Obviously, I don't know that he does mean this at all but such a move would undoubtedly cause uproar. Those impacted by it will naturally be angered and argue that they have worked hard to get where they are and have earnt what they have. That may all very well be true but those that the system supports will not all be the feckless or the deliberately fraudulent work shy. These certainly need weeding out but most will be the vulnerable and poorer off. In the current climate of growing inequality in this country, hard work does not guarantee financial security and if an increase in defence spending has to happen (which it undoubtedly does) then ultimately it will be funded by cuts to other things that will impact on a range of services and benefits. Is it not fairer that those who can better afford it take the brunt of those costs?

Mind you, another thing to consider when talking about defence spending is the dire need for a significant improvement in MoD procurement! Any money needs to be spent wisely and not squandered on projects that both go heavily over time and over budget and entail retro fittings to get them performing as they should.

I do believe that we need to urgently increase our spending on defence and I do recognise that the ever increasing benefits bill cannot be sustainable but I just think that there are quite a few complexities and nuances and that, whilst taking money from the benefits bill to find the shortfall in defence might seem the obvious choice, it is not straightforward.

[baggieal]

Apart from huge cost savings in welfare and illegals which should be done why are we still sending billions in aid to overseas countries. Why send a penny to Gaza when very rich Arab neighbours send sweet **** all? We have sent about 22 billion to Ukraine and for what? I get why the USA tax payers and demanding that the USA do not contribute a dollar more than some NATO countries who give zilch or next to nothing!

Charity begins at home to those who get off their a rses!


Fly tomorrow Omeg!

[Bombers right foot]

I thought this was a thread about strengthening our back four 🤪

[On Balance]

why are we still sending billions in aid to overseas countries. Why send a penny to Gaza when very rich Arab neighbours send sweet **** all?


Fly tomorrow Omeg!

That statement is misleading and incorrect Al. Many Arab nations do spend much in financial support of Gaza.

Safe trip to the States and enjoy.

[baggieal]

That statement is misleading and incorrect Al. Many Arab nations do spend much in financial support of Gaza.

Safe trip to the States and enjoy.

Not misleading at all because they spend f uck all in comparison and consider their wealth. Very few illegals in Middie Eastern countries too because they won?t have them or give almost zero in hand outs. Consider in Dubai construction workers are working 14 hours days days for pittance which says it all.

Honey attracts bees and look at some of the other EU countries with hard line leaders - very difficult to get in and almost zero in benefits.

[Omegstrat6]

The UK has reportedly given about ?70 million worth of aid to Gaza since 2023, the vast majority via UN partnerships and the Red Cross.

The latest official statement re Ukraine for June 2026 states that the UK has given ?28.1 billion, ?13 billion of which is for military support.


Both sums are huge, particularly the support for Ukraine but the arguments for supporting both remain pretty sound. For Gaza, there is undoubtedly.a humanitarian crisis there still and wealthier countries surely might be morally expected to help. Trump -who has managed to grift millions of dollars for himself and his family since becoming POTUS-curtailed USAID which has had a massive impact on humanitarian aid globally, but most can make their own judgements on his ideas of morality.

As for aid to Ukraine, they are fighting an illegal invasion by Russia and is this present urgent need to up defence spending not primarily driven by the threat that Putin poses? Helping Ukraine is surely therefore part of the push back against Russia and the war -whilst very clearly needing to end-is eating away at Putin's resources.

The moot point is whether the UK can afford to continue to spend the amount it does toward either of the above. When you see how many things are wrong in the UK and how many things are desperate for more investment (not just defence, but healthcare, education, policing, business) then it is totally understandable to question this. But at the same time, there are both more than a few extremely wealthy individuals and businesses in this country and also plenty of examples where vast amounts of money have been squandered on projects such as HS2.

Given the choice at the moment, for example, would I rather see money spent on defence or on improvements to the road network where (rather than fixing the scourge of potholes) huge amounts of money are being spent on by-passes and dual carriageway that save maybe 10-15 minutes on journey times? Ideally, I'd like both but I think I'd prefer more investment in our defence.

I'm just saying that there is still money in the UK, but that it's all about who has it and what it is spent on. While the economy is certainly struggling the IMF -and other sources-still put the UK as 5th in terms of GDP, behind the US (#1), China, Germany and Japan. Growth, at just O.8% , is certainly a concern when compared with the likes of the US (2.32%), China (4.41%), India (6.48%) or Brazil (1.91%) but is on a par with most of Western Europe. The issues are around the vast inequality of wealth distribution in the country (though this is not so different from many other countries of course) and that so much of the UK's money (12%) is derived from the financial services sector which is overwhelmingly London centric.

[On Balance]

That statement is misleading and incorrect Al. Many Arab nations do spend much in financial support of Gaza.

Safe trip to the States and enjoy.

Not misleading at all because they spend f uck all in comparison and consider their wealth. Very few illegals in Middie Eastern countries too because they won?t have them or give almost zero in hand outs. Consider in Dubai construction workers are working 14 hours days days for pittance which says it all.

Honey attracts bees and look at some of the other EU countries with hard line leaders - very difficult to get in and almost zero in benefits.

Al, you said

Why send a penny to Gaza when very rich Arab neighbours send sweet **** all?

When the opposite is in fact true.

Arab nations provide extensive financial and material support to Gaza through state-led humanitarian initiatives, direct bilateral aid, and regional developmental funds. Major contributors include the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan, which channel billions of dollars into medical supplies, food distribution, and infrastructure.

Primary Financial and Material Contributors
United Arab Emirates (UAE): The UAE has been one of the largest regional donors, heavily focusing on medical and food relief. Initiatives include operating field hospitals in Gaza, funding water infrastructure projects, and launching massive emergency relief drives.

Qatar: A long-time economic lifeline for Gaza, Qatar has historically provided hundreds of millions of dollars to fund operations at the territory?’s sole power plant, subsidise civil servant salaries, and provide cash stipends directly to vulnerable families. Additionally, Qatar has established and maintained field hospitals inside the territory.

Saudi Arabia: Operating primarily through the King Salman Humanitarian Aid and Relief Centre (KSrelief), Saudi Arabia has orchestrated major campaigns (raising over half a billion Saudi Riyals) to deploy air, sea, and land relief convoys. These funds provide continuous hot meals, flour, and critical medical supplies.

Jordan: Jordan focuses heavily on logistical and medical support, operating multiple field hospitals and regularly executing airborne deliveries of medical and food supplies directly into the enclave.

Channels of Support
International Organisations: Much of the financial and developmental support is funnelled through specialized United Nations agencies operating on the ground, such as the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA).

Arab Funds & NGOs: Organisations such as the Arab Fund for Economic and Social Development maintain active urgent assistance programs to alleviate poverty and rebuild civic institutions.

Direct Coordination: Aid distribution requires high levels of coordination and is facilitated through the Ad Hoc Liaison Committee as well as direct cross-border logistical bridges established with Egypt.

[baggieal]

Al, you said



When the opposite is in fact true.

Arab nations provide extensive financial and material support to Gaza through state-led humanitarian initiatives, direct bilateral aid, and regional developmental funds. Major contributors include the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan, which channel billions of dollars into medical supplies, food distribution, and infrastructure.

Primary Financial and Material Contributors
United Arab Emirates (UAE): The UAE has been one of the largest regional donors, heavily focusing on medical and food relief. Initiatives include operating field hospitals in Gaza, funding water infrastructure projects, and launching massive emergency relief drives.

Qatar: A long-time economic lifeline for Gaza, Qatar has historically provided hundreds of millions of dollars to fund operations at the territory?’s sole power plant, subsidise civil servant salaries, and provide cash stipends directly to vulnerable families. Additionally, Qatar has established and maintained field hospitals inside the territory.

Saudi Arabia: Operating primarily through the King Salman Humanitarian Aid and Relief Centre (KSrelief), Saudi Arabia has orchestrated major campaigns (raising over half a billion Saudi Riyals) to deploy air, sea, and land relief convoys. These funds provide continuous hot meals, flour, and critical medical supplies.

Jordan: Jordan focuses heavily on logistical and medical support, operating multiple field hospitals and regularly executing airborne deliveries of medical and food supplies directly into the enclave.

Channels of Support
International Organisations: Much of the financial and developmental support is funnelled through specialized United Nations agencies operating on the ground, such as the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA).

Arab Funds & NGOs: Organisations such as the Arab Fund for Economic and Social Development maintain active urgent assistance programs to alleviate poverty and rebuild civic institutions.

Direct Coordination: Aid distribution requires high levels of coordination and is facilitated through the Ad Hoc Liaison Committee as well as direct cross-border logistical bridges established with Egypt.

Right from Google but the point is it?s still a fraction of what western countries pay. How many illegal immigrants do they take in? Almost zero because even unskilled brought in labour ie building sees them working 14 hours a day in places like Dubai! Each illegal immigrant costs us over 40K each excluding benefits so do your homework. Illegals will not go to countries where they get nothing and that?s the point!

Why are we so quick to help Gaza and not genocide in places like Burma? We could not give a stuff about what goes on there because it?s not the votes!

[Omegstrat6]

Love a bit of Google research😁

According to the official govt website, the UK has spent the following on aid to Gaza:

2023 ?42 million
2024 ?138 million
2025/26 ?116 million

By comparison, since 2023, the EU has provided some 450 million USD (?388 million) and of the Middle Eastern countries, since 2023, Jordan has given 428 million USD (?318 million), Qatar 142 million USD (?105.5 million) Saudi 185 million USD (?137.4 million), Egypt196 million USD (?145.6 million), Turkey 75 million USD (?55.7 million) and UAE 3 billion USD (?2.2 billion).

The US provided, in 2024 alone, 942 million USD in economic and humanitarian aid to Gaza and the West Bank combined. Trump has reigned in USAID, but the US continues to be a major supplier of humanitarian aid across the globe, especially in Africa. The reasons aren't all altruistic of course as it gains them.influence, but it is nevertheless both needed and welcomed.

As for Mayanmar, it may not be in the UK media as much as Ukraine or Gaza but the UK provided ?38.8 million in six in 2023 and upped the amount for 2024/25 from ?44 million to ?66.45million.

Regarding illegal immigration, the World Population review site makes for some interesting reading. No surprises about continuing illegal immigration into Western Europe and Scandinavia but given that the US has an estimated maximum population of 11.4 million illegal immigrants and India 10 million, the figure for China of 100k looks surprisingly small given its size. Either they are manipulating their figures or else no-one wants to go there!😁

The report also shows that the US is the country with the estimated highest number of immigrants at 52 million (15% of population), Germany is next with 15 million (18.8% of pop), Saudi Arabia is third with 14 million (a whopping 39% of the population), Russia is 4th with 11 million (7.9% of the pop) and the UK joint 5th with the UAE with 9 million (14% of the UK population).

In terms of illegal immigration, the US is cited in most reports as having the greatest number of illegal immigrants though Saudi Arabia is reported as being the country with the third highest levels of illegal immigration which also then brings it to the country with the highest percentage of illegal immigrants amongst its population. They may not have a benefits system to take advantage of but clearly these illegal immigrants see opportunities for themselves in the country.

Al is certainly right when he talks of the levels of immigration-and illegal immigration especially-being too high in the UK but from what I've read, I think he may have lost the argument about Saudi and the UAE having comparatively low levels of illegal immigration.

If you think about it, I suppose, it's all about proximity and work opportunities and the possibility of having a better life.The US economy may not be doing as well as Donald boasts but it is still experiencing growth and it is therefore attractive to many who seek better opportunities, especially from Mexico which borders it. Both Saudi and the UAE have booming economies and are situated geographically where migration routes aren't too difficult to find. The route into Western Europe may be longer and it's countries may not presently be booming but they still remain comparatively wealthy and offer opportunities that make them attractive to migrants -though it is very hard not to agree with those who say that some, including, of course, the UK, have made it far too easy to get into. When you look at the percentage of those refused asylum that the UK actually deports, this figure too is woefully poor.

[Omegstrat6]

Aside from posting at this ungodly hour I've also been watching Sweden v Tunisia. HT at the moment and Sweden 2-1 up so Thomas will be happy so far. Don't think I can manage to stay up much longer to catch the rest of the game though.

[On Balance]

Right from Google but the point is it?s still a fraction of what western countries pay. How many illegal immigrants do they take in? Almost zero because even unskilled brought in labour ie building sees them working 14 hours a day in places like Dubai! Each illegal immigrant costs us over 40K each excluding benefits so do your homework. Illegals will not go to countries where they get nothing and that?s the point!

Why are we so quick to help Gaza and not genocide in places like Burma? We could not give a stuff about what goes on there because it?s not the votes!

Al, come on. The point was you stated categorically that rich Arab states contribute “Sweet FA to Gaza.” Now you change topic to the immigration failures of the UK.

My point was, your statement regarding rich Arab countries contributing nothing towards Gaza was misleading and incorrect. And it was incorrect. It may be a fraction of what western countries provide, that was not my argument, it was the fact that you stated they provided nothing.

My post had absolutely nothing to do with the UK failures with immigration, so why you brought that into the mix is beyond me.

Yes I did look up the internet for the facts, it is common practice these days. I looked it up due to the misleading and incorrect sentence in your post and knowing that was incorrect, I did a little research to ensure my belief was correct.

[On Balance]

Love a bit of Google research��

According to the official govt website, the UK has spent the following on aid to Gaza:

2023 ?42 million
2024 ?138 million
2025/26 ?116 million

By comparison, since 2023, the EU has provided some 450 million USD (?388 million) and of the Middle Eastern countries, since 2023, Jordan has given 428 million USD (?318 million), Qatar 142 million USD (?105.5 million) Saudi 185 million USD (?137.4 million), Egypt196 million USD (?145.6 million), Turkey 75 million USD (?55.7 million) and UAE 3 billion USD (?2.2 billion).

The US provided, in 2024 alone, 942 million USD in economic and humanitarian aid to Gaza and the West Bank combined. Trump has reigned in USAID, but the US continues to be a major supplier of humanitarian aid across the globe, especially in Africa. The reasons aren't all altruistic of course as it gains them.influence, but it is nevertheless both needed and welcomed.

As for Mayanmar, it may not be in the UK media as much as Ukraine or Gaza but the UK provided ?38.8 million in six in 2023 and upped the amount for 2024/25 from ?44 million to ?66.45million.

Regarding illegal immigration, the World Population review site makes for some interesting reading. No surprises about continuing illegal immigration into Western Europe and Scandinavia but given that the US has an estimated maximum population of 11.4 million illegal immigrants and India 10 million, the figure for China of 100k looks surprisingly small given its size. Either they are manipulating their figures or else no-one wants to go there!��

The report also shows that the US is the country with the estimated highest number of immigrants at 52 million (15% of population), Germany is next with 15 million (18.8% of pop), Saudi Arabia is third with 14 million (a whopping 39% of the population), Russia is 4th with 11 million (7.9% of the pop) and the UK joint 5th with the UAE with 9 million (14% of the UK population).

In terms of illegal immigration, the US is cited in most reports as having the greatest number of illegal immigrants though Saudi Arabia is reported as being the country with the third highest levels of illegal immigration which also then brings it to the country with the highest percentage of illegal immigrants amongst its population. They may not have a benefits system to take advantage of but clearly these illegal immigrants see opportunities for themselves in the country.

Al is certainly right when he talks of the levels of immigration-and illegal immigration especially-being too high in the UK but from what I've read, I think he may have lost the argument about Saudi and the UAE having comparatively low levels of illegal immigration.

If you think about it, I suppose, it's all about proximity and work opportunities and the possibility of having a better life.The US economy may not be doing as well as Donald boasts but it is still experiencing growth and it is therefore attractive to many who seek better opportunities, especially from Mexico which borders it. Both Saudi and the UAE have booming economies and are situated geographically where migration routes aren't too difficult to find. The route into Western Europe may be longer and it's countries may not presently be booming but they still remain comparatively wealthy and offer opportunities that make them attractive to migrants -though it is very hard not to agree with those who say that some, including, of course, the UK, have made it far too easy to get into. When you look at the percentage of those refused asylum that the UK actually deports, this figure too is woefully poor.

Interesting reading Omeg.

I do wonder sometimes if we all actually paint a bleaker picture of the UK than it is in reality.

Interesting to note that Russia is 4th when it comes to immigrants with 11 million. Surprising perhaps, until think about it and you read who they are.

From google:

The vast majority of immigrants in Russia originate from former Soviet republics (Commonwealth of Independent States), with Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Belarus, and Kazakhstan representing the largest sources. Additionally, Ukraine has accounted for millions of migrants, and there are also notable populations of Armenian, Azerbaijani, and Moldovan nationalities.

[baggieal]

Al, come on. The point was you stated categorically that rich Arab states contribute “Sweet FA to Gaza.” Now you change topic to the immigration failures of the UK.

My point was, your statement regarding rich Arab countries contributing nothing towards Gaza was misleading and incorrect. And it was incorrect. It may be a fraction of what western countries provide, that was not my argument, it was the fact that you stated they provided nothing.

My post had absolutely nothing to do with the UK failures with immigration, so why you brought that into the mix is beyond me.

Yes I did look up the internet for the facts, it is common practice these days. I looked it up due to the misleading and incorrect sentence in your post and knowing that was incorrect, I did a little research to ensure my belief was correct.

With the UK issues at home being dire why we are sending billions to Gaza and Ukraine which is staggering. They are not our wars no more than Iran is. Meanwhile our own defence is shocking and everyone laughed at the war ship chugging along to Cyprus! Charity begins at home and that excludes welfare given out like confetti!

Did you google that Derek M left Aberdeen five years ago and at Hearts so certainly mentioning Aberdeen twice was no typo 😭😭😭😭😭