Is our Party facing up better than others to the high cost of the UK re-arming? l have recently seen senior Lib Dems whom I rate highly, saying (in their own words but probably echoing the similar thoughts of many senior Lib Dem colleagues) :-
‘We support the aim, demanded by Donald Trump, of spending 3.5% of our GDP on defence, with an additional 1.5% on ancillary spending – but that is as long as we can have until 2035 to achieve this – and as long as we won’t be required to reduce spending on the NHS or welfare as a result.”
You can see where they’re coming from with this mindset (shared by many Labour MPs), not only because the latter are our two cherished spending priorities but also because everyone knows that whichever Party sticks its head above the parapet first over the cost of re-arming, is likely, except in the long term, to get its head shot off by voters.
This is because (for the same reason) voters haven’t been prepared yet. Living in a nationwide bubble of self-deception is more comfortable, with leaders and led relying on each other’s lack of realism.
The best way round ‘ostrich’ thinking on this supremely important issue is for:
- The Lib Dems to say to Keir Starmer, privately : “lf you tell the voters the truth” [ending the current institutional deceit], “we will then openly back you up and not cheaply and cynically undermine you over your courageous stand.”
- Us to urge Labour, in the same confidential communication, to coordinate with EU Governments about ‘coming out’ with their own voters, saying the same thing to them at the same time as we and Labour proclaim it in the UK.
George Cunningham, ex-Army Officer and one of our Party’s most persuasive spokespeople on the threat posed by Putin to Western Europe, is right to have been saying, for some time now that we have to plug whatever gaps in our defence we can by around 2027.
Expecting Putin to give NATO until 2035 is, as recognised by many in Liberal Democrat Friends of Ukraine (LDFoU) and our sister Party `Affiliated Organisation’ (AO) Liberal Democrat Friends of the Armed Forces, a pipedream.
Putin will obviously want to strike while we’re not ready and while he has, in Trump, a weak, often Russophile, US President, with a vast ego, who dreams of being one of a few `kings’ apportioning the world between them.
Putin is already openly ratcheting up towards this with his subtly graded but nonetheless clear, attack, on 9-10 September, on Poland, a leading NATO country on too widespread a scale for meek, timid, Trump to justifiably say that `It could have been a mistake.’ Putin is aggressively testing the West’s resolve.
Lib Dem Friends of Ukraine is well placed to help with inspiring the fightback, fired up by Ed Davey’s fearless lead over this since the July 2024 General Election. Our brilliant and tireless Acting Chair Rosemary Thomas is a former British Ambassador to Belarus, now retired – it’s such a privilege for our AO to have her in that role. Our membership includes strong-minded Ukrainians.
Another member of our LDFoU Executive, David Lewis, a former British Police Inspector, has made fifteen working trips to Ukraine over the past nearly three years with the `Ethical Support Alliance’. His main interest areas are in anti-corruption training for future police officers, ethical warfare requirements of the Ukrainian armed forces, veteran support and `boots on the ground’ issues.
The picture, he reports, is of steady resilience, determined resistance, and the maintenance of ‘normal life’ across a large part of the country. This is under appreciated here. People still drive, go to the shops, restaurants where they can afford to, have parties, carry on life. Yes, the daily funerals of the soldiers defending all this are truly awful to witness, but no sense of defeat is detectable.
We should seek to pressure the Government to support as much increased military action as we can. One member of the Sub-Committee supporting me as Military Policy Lead will soon join the RAF. Another is a British Army Reservist. We salute their courage.
LDFoU also has a strong humanitarian side to its work, including campaigning to protect Ukrainian families in the UK (in several cases through our members opening their own homes to accommodate them) with certainty and stability – and strongly supporting the Young Liberals’ pressurising over Ukrainian children’s immigration status here.
The more members LDFoU has within our Party (already over 400), the more, with their much appreciated support, we can achieve.
* Cllr Tony Paterson is a Lib Dem Councillor in the LB of Richmond. He stood for Parliament against Mrs Thatcher for the Liberal Party in Finchley in 1979. He has written this article on his own behalf.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
We do have a two-tier policing system but it is not what our homegrown racists think it is.
Lib Dems are reviewing policy and strategy says PoliticsHome
From Norman settlement to a civic square
Church Green video
Tom Bailey
Alex Macfie
William Wallace
Iain Donaldson
14 Comments
Thanks Tony, good article.
I hesitate to say, but I think it would probably be worth reaching out to the Conservatives in a similar manner too. How, I don’t know. Directly to the leadership, or via some of the more sensible ones to ask them to make the case?
I don’t follow the SNP or have much of a feel for what their stance is on this, but it may be worth reaching out to them too, on the basis that Scotland’s democracy needs defending as much as anyone else’s in the UK (and Ireland’s and continental Europe’s).
Unfortunately there is so little trust in this government that doing what I agree is essential will be very dangerous to any political party that does this. And ultimately, for defence spending to be sustainable, it does have to be supported by the public.
“I hesitate to say, but I think it would probably be worth reaching out to the Conservatives in a similar manner too.”
Totally agree – and Farage, if only to force him into the open about where he and Reform stand on the greatly admired Putin.
In the much wider political context where “patriotism,” is all the rage, it’s worth remembering and repeating that back in the 1930s it was Liberals (including party leader Archie Sinclair) and Labour that that resisted appeasement while the Tories (with a few honourable exceptions) were the apologists for totalitarianism.
Ed Davey to boycott Trump banquet as a protest over Gaza. Trump’s behaviour over Gaza has been reprehensible, no one with morals should attend that banquet. The list of Trump’s immoral behaviour is never ending – Trumps deployment of the National Guard to Los Angeles earlier this year had absolutely nothing to do with curbing civil unrest or political violence, Trump 2.0’s massive reductions in expenditures for law enforcement and to the mismanagement of criminal justice for social control purposes is immoral, This administration has also been suppressing any person, place, or point of view that upsets the president’s false narrative, renders Trump’s dystopia and repressive America as merely authoritarian hoaxes, or challenges any fraction of his antidemocratic and anti-constitutional agenda as being un-American or anti-patriotic. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crlz6rp2ln8o #RejoinEU #ClimateCrisis #StandwithUkraine
So, we have a cost of living crisis with millions struggling to not slide into debt and millions of others who already have. We have a housing emergency with growing numbers of homeless, soaring private sector rents, and urgent need to invest billions in social housing. We have major capacity issues in each NHS of the UK, with millions on waiting lists, ambulances stacking outside hospitals due to lack of beds…due to lack of care home provision for elderly people who can no longer live at home and therefore can’t be discharged. Our Universities and Colleges are struggling to survive and urgently need more financial support. Local Councils have already cut to the bare bones and still need to restrict spending further. I could go on – it’s across the board.
So how on earth do you think we are going to be able to persuade voters to vote to pay higher taxes so we can spend more on weapons etc when they are already angry at the state of public services? It won’t wash.
Well commented, Brenda W ill!
Might it be the case that we have starving/semi-starving children, increasing food banks, over expensive housing. harmfully long medical waiting lists, tretiary education tottering towards bankruptcy, ditto local counclls and weakened military forces because “our” major political parties all opted for, and still promote, Austerity/Neoliberalism?
Might L. D. H. Q cut to the chase/realty and adopt a less predatory, more whole society developing form of capitalism?
We need to rearm at a faster pace than the current plans of the Government. America has already started to downsize in Europe just as the Russians begin violations of Polish and Rumanian airspace. But we also have to be realistic about our world role eg six month deployments to Pacific. Also money spent should not be on American weaponry but R andD on British hardware eg F35s and GCAP.
@ Brenda and Steve
“Might L. D. H. Q cut to the chase/realty and adopt a less predatory, more whole society developing form of capitalism?”
The occupants of the Kremlin will not take a blind bit of notice will they? Remember, these are people who – if you criticise them, they put you in jail if you are in their country or poison you if you are not. And right now they continue their assaults on Ukraine – a liberal democracy – flawed I am sure, but a liberal democracy for all that. And a few days ago they violated Polish airspace.
Meanwhile the UK and Europe generally cannot rely on the US.
A government has a primary need to defend its citizens and help keep it’s friends and trading partners safe to maintain the economy which then enables all the health and welfare aspects.
A strong economy will enable it all and that is the parallel challenge.
We can’t have a strong economy if, one by one, our friends and main trading partners fall into the Russian or Chinese empires.
This we need both to build the economy and rearm fast. The arms industry is part of the economy with jobs, taxes and export earnings.
> So how on earth do you think we are going to be able to persuade voters … ?
This is the key question. Defence is imperative, and social spending is necessary.
I could sell the defence spending in Barrow and probably Blackburn. Shipbuilding and aerospace. But not Boston.
We may have to do both. This cannot be done using the legacy approach of treasury revenue allocated by Oxbridge graduates in Whitehall and no regional participation at all. Which is where Labour think-tanks are pointing.
PART 1 OF AUTHOR’S RESPONSE TO 10 COMMENTS
Dear All,
Please excuse my delay in responding to your very well expressed comments on my article. I regret that I have a serious illness, and have been in Hospital. However, now that I’m home, I’d still like to pay you the courtesy of a collective reply from me, which I know that the LDV Editorial Team also appreciates and I’m happy to provide .
The first comment is from you, Jonathan Brown. Thank you very much for it. I’ve long agreed with your fundamental point that the Lib Dems should `reach out’ to other Parties, to try to find a common `Voice’ drawing cross-party attention to the danger facing Western Europe, including Ukraine.
Conservatives:
I agree with you that we should only reach out to `sensible Conservatives’ – or direct to their leadership (to be approached, we suggest, by ours). I hope you agree with the suggestion in my article, in the context of the Government, that our Party do this privately (please see my opening four paras), for the reason you mention (namely recognition that that one Party `breaking cover’ on its own over the cost of urgent re-arming is likely to get its head shot off by voters).
Similarly to what I say there, any approach to the Conservatives (seeking a common platform to end current `ostrich thinking’) needs to be done privately in the first instance, I submit.
PART 2 OF AUTHOR’S RESPONSE TO 10 COMMENTS
SNP
Reaching out similarly to the SNP (to whom you also refer) is also a good idea in principle, though it would be challenging in practice. They are firmly anti-nuclear deterrent. Nor would they be willing, if they won independence (admittedly a big `if’) for the Govan and Scotstoun shipyards in Glasgow to go on building surface warships other than to defend Scotland, thus leaving no shipyard geared up for the UK MoD to do this in outside Scotland, which Scottish independence would make unavailable to us for this purpose, meaning that the rest of the UK is currently taking a big gamble..
Labour
I agree with your third para. I have submitted how we might best communicate with Labour. I’m not aware of a Labour equivalent of our group (LDFoU). Some Trade Unions have shown robust support for Ukraine, however.
John McDonnell MP, who had the Labour whip restored to him in late September 2025, is pro-military assistance (arms etc.) for Uktraine. He frequently frames such support in moral and humanitarian terms – as do we (LDFoU.
To Tristan Ward : I’m glad that you agree with me and Jonathan Brown, Tristan. Thank you, Tristan. You broaden the point eloquently in your comment.
Farage appears irritated by the challenge to Reform UK’s monopoly of the Union Jack at Conferences, first by us and then by Labour. It’s a `false flag’ in Reform’s case -dangerous to our nation whenever they flaunt it.
PART 3 OF AUTHOR’S RESPONSE TO 10 COMMENTS
To Les Jones
Please forgive me for not going into detail regarding your comment, Les, as your point is not about my specific subject, namely the urgent need for us to re-arm. However, I agree with everything that you say about Trump.
To: Brenda Will and Steve Trevethan
I respect your opposition to the UK re-arming – apparently at all, let alone urgently as I urged in my article – and I acknowledge the fact that a small element of our Party agrees with you openly, with perhaps a more significant element doing so more covertly (as to which please see my article’s first three paragraphs.)
I am not clear, with respect, as to how you think that us not standing up to Putin will help shield our NHS and welfare budgets. He has pared his equivalent of these in Russia to the bone in order to fund his military budget which is vast as a share of Russian GDP.
Reform UK’s many Russia-lovers would make sure that this happened here as well if we opened the door to these `Trojan Horses’ – or they would, in the alternative, drop the cost of the UK re-arming from our economy’s balance sheet altogether.
Your (with respect, naive) approach also means bidding goodbye to our long-treasured freedom and democracy.
Commenting on Tristan’s response to Brenda and Steve:-
I agree with you, Tristan. Thank you.
FINAL (FOURTH) PART OF TONY PATERSON’S RESPONSE, WITH THANKS, TO 10 COMMENTS
To: Tim Rogers
I agree, Tim. Thank you.
To: Ellyott
Both your comments are far-sighted and realistic, Ellyott. Thanks to you too.
To: Peter Chambers
Yes. Thank you for articulating the crucial dilemma, Peter. In this context, the only `blind eye’ I am willing to respect being turned is the literally blind one (or nearly so) which Nelson had suffered in 1794 to which he famously held his telescope at the Battle of Copenhagen in 1801 when Admiral Sir Hyde Parker cravenly hoisted the signal to withdraw.
Everyone needs to share the burden of us urgently re-arming – not just those on welfare, of course, nor just those whose taxes will have to go up, but all of us.
In the long run, the Lib Dems will reap the same political dividend as Winston Churchill did form a grateful nation for having spoken out honestly and presciently about the looming fascist danger threatening us.
We may well not even have until 2027 to plug as many of the numerous holes in our threadbare national defences (sorely depleted by the Tories as as part of a wildly optimistic and vastly overextended `peace dividend’) as we can by then, as patriotically urged by our authoritative military spokesman (and ex-Army Officer), George Cunningham.
This is all the more so in the light of Putin’s latest probing provocations (further testing NATO’s wavering willpower) perpetrated since LDV helpfully pubilshed my article on 17 September.