In case the message hasn’t quite got through to our European Leaders, you can’t voice it more starkly than in the new U.S. National Security Strategy.
The new strategy shows the U.S. administration’s contempt towards the European Union (unsurprisingly, given it is a powerful economic competitor). It believes the EU is endangering European civilisation (e.g. “migration policies”, “loss of national identities”, “censorship of free speech and suppression of political opposition”), and declares that the U.S. will therefore “cultivate resistance” to save us, which will de facto lead to increasingly interfering in our internal politics to encourage right-wing governments getting elected.
As I have said before, Europe’s leaders have been too obsequious in their pandering to the current U.S. administration. The reason is obvious. We are beholden to the U.S. for many aspects of our security. Yet now we must think how we can manage the Ukraine war and European security on our own. We must bolster urgently our European defences, sufficiently to deter the expansion of Russia hybrid warfare against Europe and its evolution into kinetic warfare, threatening the lives of our own citizens.
We are clearly at a crisis point. PM Keir Starmer urgently needs to address the British Nation to explain the gravity of the situation and appeal for public understanding and support, laying the ground for measures to make the country more resilient. He also needs to talk to his Labour backbenchers to get them on his side. It is no longer “business as usual”. Action is need in at least three areas:
- A UK “Great Reform Act” to substantially update our electoral system and make more impervious to foreign influence, bringing it into force already for the next general election, especially adopting a more proportionally representative electoral system, setting a maximum limit to political donations from any source, and greatly strengthening the independence and resources of the Electoral Commission to properly ensure free and fair elections which truly reflect the will of the British Electorate.
- An emergency “Resilience Budget” which would include funds for raising public awareness, civil preparedness and repairing our dilapidated armed forces to be a more credible deterrent to our enemies within two years (see my Liberator article). Incredibly, this year’s autumn budget completely ignored the urgent need to increase defence expenditure.
Clearly, speedy measures to find the cash are needed. The Lib Dems’ call for the UK entering the EU’s Customs Union to grow our economy is a wise one, although it would take too much time for this purpose. Political parties must rethink and support the reduction of the size of the UK’s health, education and welfare budget which has grown in a half century from around a third to three quarters of UK government expenditure and is utterly unsustainable.
- Doing all we can to support Ukraine, which is taking punishing losses on behalf of Europe’s security. Frozen Russian assets must be deployed to support Ukraine. We must absolutely never return Russia’s frozen assets as part of any U.S. deal with Russia – we would be cutting out own throats as they would allow Russia to fund the next war and more against Europe.
No doubt, our European leaders will now be concerned about what the delayed U.S. National Defence Strategy will say. Given the U.S. National Security Strategy, the Trump Administration will definitely withdraw some of its troops from Europe, as he perceives there is “no threat to the U.S. Homeland”.
The level of that withdrawal clearly occupies the minds of European Leaders, not wanting to provoke a larger withdrawal by a sudden angry Trump decision. However, the reality now is that the U.S. will use its presence in Europe to “keep the peace” by preventing NATO action, in order to give it the space to achieve its business deals with Russia. The U.S. troops’ presence may dangerously evolve into more of a hindrance than a help.
* George Cunningham is Vice-Chair of the Lib Dem Friends of Armed Forces and Honorary President of Lib Dems Overseas. https://www.linkedin.com/in/george-cunningham-a6b160178/
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
School uniform, boys in skirts and Marcuse's 'repressive tolerance'
Is Kier Starmer the new John Major?
A bargain at 23 guineas?
20C night
Chloe
David Raw
Jana
Peter Black
Nigel Quinton
27 Comments
“Political parties must rethink and support the reduction of the size of the UK’s health, education and welfare budget…”
Really? I could imagine this being proposed by the Tories or Reform, but not by a Liberal Democrat.
I for one would not vote for a party that supported a reduction in the health budget at a time when ambulances are often queueing outside hospitals unable to transfer patients due to lack of available beds. As for reducing education budgets, not sure what you propose that will not seriously impact on children’s chance in life or our future economic prosperity.
Perhaps there is scope for reducing welfare spending – we do need to address the scandal that some of those who could work for a living, chose not to because they take home more in universal credit, housing benefits etc than they would earn by working. But that is unlikely to release the king of funding needed to boost our defences capabilities. So, I assume you are considering targeting the State Retirement Pension that millions of people believe that have an entitlement to receive as a result of paying National insurance throughout their working lives?
In summary, I for one won’t be voting for any party that proposes cutting health spending, cutting education or cutting state pension entitlements – I’m sure I will not be alone.
@ Jenny Smith “In summary, I for one won’t be voting for any party that proposes cutting health spending, cutting education or cutting state pension entitlements – I’m sure I will not be alone.”
You won’t be alone, Jenny,.
It is interesting to take at least a cursory look at the Swedish and UK documents on planning for national resilience.
The UK seems to compile a list of action points that will be distributed do Departments in Whitehall for senior civil servants to consider how the Department should put in hand agenda items to start and track progress. Possibly budgets could be compiled in due course.
The Swedish plan looks like a way of mobilising the nation by pushing initiative out as far as possible from government to the citizen, civil society, and sectors – such as farming – to take action within their competence and aligned with the national goals. There is a realism about how what is needed is well outside the national budget and also that command-and-control will not achieve such a complex wanted result.
The UK proposal has the same shape as the HMG Industrial Strategy and the HMG Submitting to US AI Action Plan. Top-down, SW1 governed, mobile capital friendly, citizen hostile.
Really. George? Cut education, health and welfare? By all means start a long term programme to get people off welfare and into work, but that really is long term. If we need cash now, then taxing wealth and income is the only way, plus the banks and tech companies. SVT is also a way to raise revenue.
Our party has become frit of telling the truth about taxation. Pay peanuts, get monkeys. It is fairer to raise revenue by progressive taxation, not through regressive taxes on goods and services. The uber rich are getting away with paying little or nothing toward services and have to pay more. You’d think, to see Labour’s budget that they are being paid not to tax the rich, the banks or the tech companies.
I also disagree that forming a custom’s union need necessarily take a long time.
Our party will never agree to your suggestions in a million years. Back to the drawing board, George!
@Jenny
I am 100% with you.
I’m with you 100% on this, George. People won’t realise until either it’s too late or when their own loved ones are impacted by Russia’s hybrid war on Europe that, actually, we need to be as aggressive as possible to defeat Ruscism.
@ Jack Meredith How much would you cut “the U.K.’s Health, Education and Welfare Budgets”, and what order of priorities would you have within those cuts ? Can you put a figure on it, Jack ?
Oddly enough, one reflects that during WW2 in 1941/44 the UK Government of the time spent much effort drawing up plans to develop and improve Health, Education and Welfare….. not cut them.
“Doing all we can to support Ukraine”
Well, we’re not. We’re part of a “Coalition of the Unwilling”.
Frozen Russian assets are not being deployed to help Ukraine. Belgium complains that if that were done and it all went legally pear-shaped, it would be Belgium that would be stuck on the hook. There is an obvious way around that, which would be for the EU and the UK jointly to indemnify Belgium, and thereby eliminate the financial risk to Belgium. If they really wanted to, they could do that. It seems they would rather hide behind Belgium and do nothing.
But of course, it’s fighting that really matters. Now OK, conscripting young Britons to fight and die in Ukraine is of course a non-starter. However, we do also have a volunteer professional army. We asked and paid our soldiers to go and fight a stupid war in Afghanistan, which did not protect the UK or defend British interests. 453 UK soldiers died.
If it was “reasonable” for our Government to ask for that sacrifice in Afghanistan, why is it not “reasonable” to ask our soldiers to make a similar commitment to Ukraine – where they would indeed be fighting (if it came to that) to defend Britain and Europe, as well as Ukraine?
@David Allen
“ OK, conscripting young Britons to fight and die in Ukraine is of course a non-starter”
If you are not keen on ‘conscripting young Britons to fight and die’, I would suggest that sending troops to fight Russian forces in Ukraine may not lead to your desired outcome…unless you believe that a future war with Russia will be settled by the use of nuclear weapons, thereby making conscription unnecessary.
So what would you advocate, Jenny? Conscription?
@David Allen
“So what would you advocate, Jenny? Conscription?”
No, David, I would not advocate conscription. I think conscription would be necessary if we were planning to go to war with Russia, but I do not want us to take that step. Therefore, I would advocate that we do not send our troops to fight Russian forces in Ukraine.
OK. It’s difficult to square the circle. In Eastern Europe, there is widespread acceptance that being prepared to fight off Russia might be the best way to make sure that you never have to do so.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2025/dec/08/id-defend-our-nation-poles-prepare-for-growing-threat-of-war
But in the UK, people feel comfortably far away. Any politician who talked about the possibility of conscription would probably see their vote halve overnight. But… If all we are going to do is waffle about being a “coalition of the willing”, buy a few planes, and mount a few military exercises well back from Ukraine, Putin will know just how scared of us he should be. Not at all.
There is of course a balance to be struck. We must not give Putin the excuse to say “The Brits want to start a war, so we’re justfied in hitting first.” But, what about a defensive mobilisation, maybe troops stationed in Germany and ready to intervene, in the event that Putin signs a peace deal and then breaks the deal?
“Our party has become frit of telling the truth about taxation.”
Luckily our party is not frit of telling the truth about the need for military spending – Europe – and that includes the UK – needs to pay for its own security now the US has washed it hands of it.
If we fail to re-arm there is a serious risk that we will be caught out in the same way as we were in the 1930s.
“Our party will never agree to your suggestions in a million years. Back to the drawing board, George!”
Really? Our leadership and MPs are highlighting the threat now. Churchill – who was a liberal-tory if there ever was one – made a second career out of it and Archie Sinclair was right on board. We were smart enough to see the threat from Hitler in the 1930s and we are seeing the threat now even if some people are closing their eyes to it.
One thing you can be sure of – if Farage, Trump and Putin’s ideas take too deep a hold in Europe – you can wave good-by to all these nice ideas of universal benefits, free education and equal rights for everyone.
@David Raw
“Oddly enough, one reflects that during WW2 in 1941/44 the UK Government of the time spent much effort drawing up plans to develop and improve Health, Education and Welfare….. not cut them.”
A good thing people were willing to spend the blood and treasure so as to be able to put these plans into effect isn’t it?
@ Tristan Ward “Churchill – who was a liberal-tory if there ever was one”.
No, Tristan. Take a look at his speeches on eugenics and sterilisation in 1911, his behaviour towards the miners in 1921 and 1926 and his attitude towards the people of India between the wars.
I am grateful for all the comments and hope this has started a useful debate. We should not however lose sight of the wood for the trees. UK/Europe cannot rely on the U.S. anymore, which has, in effect joined Russia and China in being a threat to our way of life. We must discard old shibboleths. We cannot wait until the next UK general election as the current political system may bring about a far right (likely MAGA-subservient, incompetent and corrupt) government based on the Will of less than a third of the British vote. Therefore we must safeguard our democracy (a Great Reform Act), prepare to defend the security of our citizens (a Resilience Budget) and continue to back Ukraine for our own security (Frozen Russian assets, put to good use). And yes there will be sacrifices to be made along the way to achieve this in the short time we have left to become able to deter credibly .
Is there only a dichotomy between cutting social spending and raising taxes?
What about looking at the Defence budget afresh? A recent SECDEF noted that top-up money for MOD was not used for new thing (a la Ukraine) but the existing programmes.
(Possibly filling black holes noted by the NAO and PAC.) We have to query all the pivot
to Asia activities. The UK now has no role East of Suez! What about those expensive US planes – some leased – that effectively have kill switches? Should we move more to UK sourced avionics? Should we offset such costs with defence exports? How to we explain that to green-leaning voters who equate the defence industry to non-ESG activity?
All this will cause inter=service conflict. Drones for land-warfare will benefit the Army but not the RN and RAF. Reducing carrier spend – to Europe only – will cause the RN pain. Trimming spend on RC-135, P-8, E-7, and F-35 would upset the RAF. If time has truly run out, then the recent SDR is obsolete and we need an urgent new one.
V1.1
I have taken some time to respond to George because this issue will not be solved by considering defence in isolation. Whilst a heightened sense of urgency in our Defence posture is needed, we need to think big picture to provide long term not quick fixes. I did blink when I saw George’s suggestion to “reduce the size of the health, education and welfare budgets” but I do agree that the current growth of the latter department may be unsustainable but it requires careful analysis to ensure those in genuine need are taken care of. I would rather concentrate on growing our economy and tax base to pay for those services, especially Education and Health.
12 thoughts:
1. Remove tax loopholes such as tax havens, most of which are UK territories, such as Jersey, Guernsey, the Isle of Man, and West Indian territories. To which I would add, much tighter control of crypto.
2. Global taxation. If you have a US passport, you pay US taxes. We should do the same
3. Much higher taxation of the global tech companies especially the likes of Amazon, Google, Facebook and X. It would not only raise taxes, but also support our high streets
4. Taxing companies who benefit from actions well outside their business acumen, such as the banks with the £50bn or so from quantitative tightening and oil and gas companies high prices (although with oil prices at $60, not such low hanging fruit)
5. Councils entirely responsible for their revenue raising entirely independent of national government including the revaluing of all property and the removal of caps on council tax. If you have a £100m property, why are you paying the same rate as a £1m property? Analysis may indicate adjustment in income tax levels. Collection in a PAYE system.
6. Compulsory purchase of land for housing. The current land owners didn’t create the land. How did we create the garden towns? If we don’t sort house pricing so that our youngsters can look forward to owning their own place, then why would they bother to work? If they have no hope, why do we suppose so many are declaring mental health issues to claim universal credit?
7. More on young people. The interest rate levied on it is egregious and the debt level is crushing. This is a disincentive for young people to take jobs at a remuneration level which incur student debt repayment. What is the effective tax rate?
8. I am tired of the trope that the top 1% pay whatever large proportion of taxes that they pay. They pay more tax because they earn more. Please go and earn as much as you can but stop the complaining and start enjoying your wealth. But the anomaly at £100,000 needs sorting. The idea that those just below £100,000 are declining work is damaging our economy.
9. Review of civil service pensions. Is the current system fair or sustainable? Any changes would need to be introduced gradually. Military pensions have fallen well below the growth in state pension let alone civil service pensions.
10. Rejoin the EU. Lets stop beating around the bush and get stuck in before someone else steals our thunder. Only 17m voted to leave the EU. Our populations Is now north of 67m. I keep hearing we must respect the referendum. That was 10 years ago. We’ve had 3 general elections since then. I hear about the unelected bureaucrats in Brussels. I didn’t realise that our civil servants were elected? Has Strasbourg been closed? The benefits far outweigh the so called loss of sovereignty. You can’t eat sovereignty. We need to lead from the front not hide behind some narrow strip of water.
11. Back to the NSS. Its Nationalism not Patriotism. Something else we need to call out.
12. Political Funding. This should only be permitted from individuals who are UK passport holders, UK tax resident, whose tax affairs are up to date with a maximum annual contribution. I am sure there more criteria to be added in the light of others with more experience.
Some of these thoughts will be much more difficult to introduce than others so start with the low hanging fruit. We need a clear vision which requires examination but we must not take too long over it. Our ultimate aim must be to secure power so that we can implement our policies.
George Cunningham,
As many have written Liberal Democrats should not be thinking of cutting spending on education, health and the social safety net. If you hadn’t suggested this the discussion would have focused on what you say is needed. It would be useful to know the military strength of NATO minus the USA compared to Russia. In the past it was said that for an attack to succeed the attacker needed to outnumber the opposition, but I can’t remember by how much.
A Great Reform Act might be what the country needs now that we have five political parties (maybe six in England) and six (maybe seven) in Scotland and Wales, but the most important thing with regard to outside influence is limiting political donations and strengthening the powers of the Electoral Commission.
The government could easily have increased the target number of soldiers, sailors and air force people, but investment is needed in the hardware of defence as well. In my recent article on LDV (https://www.libdemvoice.org/an-ok-budget-but-it-could-have-been-much-better-78792.html) I suggested the government could increase investment by £54 billion (£29 billion is about 1% of GDP). Some of this could be spent on military equipment if manufactured in the UK.
We also need to increase the size of the reserves (TA etc.)
Tristan Ward,
Would you support an act similar to the one passed in April 1939 where single men aged between 20 and 22 are called up for six months training before being returned to civvy street and placed into the reserves?
Michael BG,
I’ll have a go at your final question.
Military preparedness is not going to be an easy sell to the British public. Calling people up would be a huge turn-off, and vote loser. Picking on young people, ditto.
Poland (see my link posted earlier) has a voluntary training programme in “civilian resilience” which is open to pretty much all ages. Something like that sounds much more palatable, which it has got to be, because, only then might it actually happen.
Yes, US citizens are liable for US taxation, but they can offset against it taxes they can show that they paid elsewhere. Nevertheless, UK citizens SHOULD be liable for UK taxation wherever they live, but like the US should be able to offset taxes they can prove they paid in other tax jurisdictions. Someone ought to be investigating how much money might be raised by such a move.
As a pacifist, I am against war because at the end of the day – and after huge loss of life on both sides – disagreements have to be settled by agreements or treaties. I am also strongly of the view that Russia could be brought to the negotiating table if European and other governments actually applied real sanctions and isolated Russia from taking part in the world economy. That requires stiff penalties for those who break sanctions including confiscation of any money made and imprisonment. At the moment, it’s all very half hearted and those who continue to supply Russia with goods, arms and services and who but Russian oil and gas are simply treated like recalcitrant children and given a slap on the wrist.
Julian Brookes,
I like some of your suggestions particularally number 2 taxing UK citizens living abroad, which I suggested yesterday in https://www.libdemvoice.org/the-lib-dems-are-at-a-crossroads-an-open-letter-to-the-leadership-78797.html . Plus see my earlier comment above.
David Allen,
We have a voluntary scheme for the reserves. I would support expanding it. The Guardian article was not very clear on how useful the civil defence training would be in the event of a war and what role they would have.
Mick Taylor,
While some wars have ended with a compromise such as the War of Spanish Succession (1713-14), others have resulted in the winner setting the peace terms such as the Napoleonic Wars, the First World War and the Second World War.
@David Raw
Take a look at [Churchill’s] speeches on eugenics and sterilisation in 1911, his behaviour towards the miners in 1921 and 1926 and his attitude towards the people of India between the wars.
You are falling into the trap of judging 19th early 20th century people by the standards of today.
It was (and remains) perfectly liberal to be sceptical of trade union power and communism/socialism.
On India Churchill was a old fashioned paternalist though clearly he misunderstood Ghandi completely. You may find these defences interesting: https://nationalinterest.org/feature/winston-churchill-and-india-setting-record-straight-212881https://nationalinterest.org/feature/winston-churchill-and-india-setting-record-straight-212881
https://historyreclaimed.co.uk/churchill-and-india/
The ugly truth is that eugenics was intellectually respectable across the spectrum in the early 20th century. If you reject Churchill on these grounds you also have to banish Maynard Keynes, Beveridge (ironic given your comment at 5pm on 8th Dec), the Webbs, Bernard Shaw and Bertram Russell for example.
Remember also that famously social democratic Sweden was sterilizing people up to 1972 on eugenic grounds.
I appreciate very much everyone’s contributions to the debate and constructive ideas put forward. I would like to thank Julian Brookes in particular for his extensive analysis of potential additional funding resources.
We want the Labour government to cut the false reassuring rhetoric, come clean about our lack of preparedness and do something about it urgently rather than kicking the ball down to the road to ten years’ hence (the Strategic Defence Review deadline) , by which time the liberal democratic order may be close to extinction, if not extinct.
I commend the party’s leadership role in Parliament in warning of the dangers ahead and pressing for the country to take a more principled stand alongside Europe against the leaders of the new Great Power Predators – China, Russia, USA – who are increasingly interfering in our internal affairs and endangering the security and well-being of our citizens.