Our place to talk – an independent website for supporters of the Liberal Democrat party in the UK.

The most-read independent website by and for Lib Dem supporters. Not paid for by trade unions or millionaires.

Advert

Tag Archives: defence

The Falklands are under threat again and we can’t rely on America to save us

By Mo Waqas | Sun 26th April 2026 - 8:30 am

I’ll be honest. When I first started researching hypersonic missiles and the Falkland Islands, it felt like a subject more suited to a defence think-tank than a Lib Dem blog. But the events of the past 48 hours have changed my mind and I think they should change yours too.

Argentine President Javier Milei has declared that he is doing “everything humanly possible” to return the Falklands to Argentine hands. That alone would be manageable. What is far more alarming is the backdrop: a leaked Pentagon memo has proposed withdrawing American diplomatic support for British sovereignty over the islands as punishment, apparently, for Britain’s refusal to participate in US strikes against Iran. In a single week, the two pillars Britain has traditionally leaned on: the Special Relationship and Argentine diplomatic restraint have both wobbled badly.

As Liberal Democrats, we believe in the rule of law, self-determination, and the rights of people to choose their own future. In 2013, 99.8% of Falkland Islanders voted to remain British. That democratic mandate is beyond question. Our obligation to defend those 3,200 people is not optional, it is constitutional and moral. But right now, I am not convinced we have the tools to do it quickly enough.

Here is the uncomfortable truth about our current Falklands garrison. RAF Mount Pleasant hosts between 1,000 and 2,000 personnel, just four Typhoon fighters, Sky Sabre air defence batteries, and a single patrol vessel. It is a holding force brave and professional, but not one designed to resist a determined modern assault alone. In 1982, Argentina invaded partly because a token garrison and the rumoured withdrawal of HMS Endurance convinced Buenos Aires that Britain wouldn’t or couldn’t respond. We must never allow that miscalculation again.

The problem is geography and time. A carrier strike group sailing from Portsmouth takes approximately 15 days to reach the South Atlantic, travelling around 500 miles a day. In those 15 days, our small garrison is essentially on its own. That is the window any adversary would exploit.

Continue reading »

Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged falklands, hypersonic missiles and international | 19 Comments

Time is ticking: Britain’s defences need urgent fixing

By George Cunningham | Sun 19th April 2026 - 1:55 pm

This week, the government suffered its latest humiliation when Lord George Robertson, a former NATO Secretary-General, ex-Labour Defence Secretary and chair of the government’s 2025 Strategic Defence Review accused the government of “corrosive complacency” in risking the country’s security by dragging his heels on how the government will fund rebuilding its military in the face of the growing threat from Russia.

A rising crescendo of articles and speeches by ex-military, defence correspondents and experts – and our very own Lib Dem defence spokesperson James MacCleary MP – have been highlighting that the government’s Strategic Defence Review remains little more than rhetoric after one year.

Poland (4.5%), Latvia (4%) and Lithuania (3.7%) have the highest GDP % expenditure of NATO members on defence. Germany is hugely increasing its defence budget by lifting its debt brake to spend nearly €650bn over the next five years. Even France has managed an increase in its defence budget by EUR 6.5bn for 2027, despite a debt level (117% of GDP), higher than the UK’s (110%). However, the UK is in last place (alongside France), in terms of growing its defence budget amongst European NATO partners during the past decade.

The shocking state of British armed forces means that we cannot defend ourselves effectively. Aircraft carriers that cannot be adequately protected, an eviscerated Royal Navy with all major ships but one destroyer, one frigate and one Astute class nuclear submarine under maintenance or repair, an army that can barely pull together a functioning brigade of soldiers for immediate deployment. Surely, our armed forces, whose men and women put their lives at risk for the nation, deserve better.

The Defence Investment Plan – which our industry needs to produce the weapons and equipment – continues to be “missing in inaction”. The Ministry of Defence is in a fight with the Treasury for more money – and not getting very far. We are meant to increase our defence budget from 2.3% (£68 bn) to 2.5% of GDP by next year, yet the defence chiefs are now being asked to find £3.5bn of savings, raising fears that weapons projects may be even further delayed. If the Chagos Islands deal eventually goes through, it will lop another 0.2% of GDP off the defence budget. Neither logic nor maths add up.

Commentators are saying we only have 2-3 years to fix the problem at best we can because of the Russian threat. And already a year has been lost (and four since the second invasion of Ukraine). So the painful question is how can we raise the money for defence in the short time (let alone manufacture the equipment we need)? Some ideas:

Continue reading »

Posted in Op-eds | 20 Comments

How can the UK protect itself?

By William Gleeson | Tue 17th February 2026 - 9:28 am

Sir Ed Davey’s recent Defence proposal to start selling war bonds so that we can “move far faster” on UK defence spending, was welcome. The state of our armed forces is far poorer than these dangerous times call for. The UK’s ability to project its defensive capabilities within our own neighbourhood would be severely tested and likely found wanting if it were to be needed any time soon.

Whilst I was pleased to see that there were the beginnings of a party plan on funding the defence investment needed. I was left wondering how ready we are as a party for war, hybrid war or almost war. Sir Ed rightly called out that “we’re in almost a Cold War type scenario” with a nod to Russian use of drones, submarines and shadow fleets, calling it a “serious threat”. However, I believe this underplays our current predicament.

If we take stock of where we are today: the Russian state has poisoned British citizens in Salisbury; assassinated an opposition leader in London; directed relentless cybercrime attacks against the UK costing us billions; had its ships cutting our allies communications cables; is likely directing drones interfering with our military bases; using our children as tools of attack against us; caused the death of many UK citizens through disruption to the NHS; is directing arson attacks on London and may be encouraging another migrant crisis to disrupt social cohesion.

Is this peace? It doesn’t feel like it.

Is it too hard to believe that with a mixture of dark web, bitcoin, crime gangs and vulnerable youth we are close to the Kremlin orchestrating a campaign of disruption and destruction across Britain? Our transport links are vulnerable to something as simple as a person being seen walking on or near a train line. We’ve already seen what damage untrained amateurs can do to our defence capabilities.

Continue reading »

Posted in Op-eds | 12 Comments

Mathew on Monday

By Mathew Hulbert | Mon 16th February 2026 - 4:30 pm

On NATO, the extremes are a risk Britain cannot afford

For once, Keir Starmer is right.

When he says that Reform UK on the Hard Right and the Greens on the Hard Left pose risks to NATO and, by extension, Britain’s national security, he is identifying something serious.

From opposite ideological poles, both parties advance instincts that would weaken the alliance that has underpinned European security for over seventy years.

That should concern all of us.

Reform’s worldview is, from what I can tell, rooted in a kind of muscular unilateralism. Alliances are treated with suspicion. Multilateral commitments are portrayed as constraints on sovereignty. There is an underlying assumption that Britain would be stronger if it stood more alone.

History suggests otherwise.

Britain’s security has never rested on ‘splendid’ isolation. It has rested on partnership-on shared defence, intelligence cooperation and collective defence. NATO is not a bureaucratic luxury. It is the backbone of that system.

On the other side of the spectrum, elements within the Green movement have long been uncomfortable with NATO’s very premise. There remains a strain of thought that sees military alliances as inherently proactive and imagines that scaling back defence commitments would somehow make the world safer.

It would not.

In an increasingly dangerous world, with Russia waging war in Europe, authoritarian regimes flexing their muscles and global instability rising, weakening NATO would not reduce tensions. It would invite miscalculation.

Deterrence only works if it is still credible.

Now, let’s be clear. Supporting NATO does not mean pretending it is perfect. It must adapt to new threats. It must modernise. It must ensure democratic accountability and maintain public consent. Liberal internationalists should always press for reform and renewal.

But reform (small R) is not the same as retreat.

There is a profound difference between improving an alliance and hollowing it out.

The superficial attraction of the Hard Right and Hard Left to some may, arguably, be understandable. They offer clarity. They offer bold rhetoric. They promise decisive breaks with the status quo. In unsettled times, that can feel appealing.

But national security is not the place for ideological experiments.

Britain’s safety rests on stable alliances, credible commitments and steady leadership. NATO has preserved peace in Europe for decades precisely because it binds democracies together in collective defence.

Undermining that framework, whether in the name of nationalist sovereignty or moral idealism, would make us weaker, not stronger.

This is where the Liberal Democrats must be absolutely clear.

We are the party of responsible internationalism. We believe in NATO because we believe in cooperation between democracies. We believe in reform because we believe institutions must evolve. And we reject the isolationism of the Hard Right and the naïveté of the Hard Left.

The political centre is not a halfway house between extremes. It is the place where serious governing happens. In a world that is becoming more volatile, not less, Britain needs steadiness, credibility and alliances that work.

On NATO, that means strength and reform, not retreat.

We must back Vince Cable on a full and fair investigation into Andrew

Continue reading »

Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged 2026 winter olympics, andrew mountbatten-windsor, mathew on monday, national security, NATO, sport and vince cable | 9 Comments

Josh Babarinde writes…. Trump can go f**k himself

By Josh Babarinde | Fri 23rd January 2026 - 11:07 pm

There are moments that demand we speak plainly.

The moment that Trump demeaned and mocked the sacrifices of our troops is one of them.

It is time we recognise this moment for what it is, and move together as a party and as a country to meet it.

Donald Trump has accused NATO forces in Afghanistan of having “stayed a little back, a little off the front lines.” It is time for an uncomfortable truth. This man is no friend of Britain, and we must stop pretending that he is.

Our armed forces personnel stand ready, if necessary, to lay down their lives for our security. There is no higher calling. And those who answer that call, those who brace themselves to face dangers most of us will never know, deserve our eternal gratitude and a clear promise: that we will never forget, and we will never allow their service to be disrespected.

Afghanistan was the only time in NATO’s history that Article 5 was invoked. And it was invoked for America, after the attacks of September 11th.

We answered the call. We sent our troops because when your ally is attacked, you stand with them. That’s what the alliance – and the special relationship – has meant to us. That’s what we believed America meant. It is that type of internationalism that our party has always defended, and what makes me so proud to be a Liberal Democrat.

But we must be clear about who in Britain still lacks the courage to stand up. Nigel Farage could only muster that Trump’s comments were “not quite fair.” Not quite fair.

As if hundreds of British deaths were a matter of fairness, as if this were anything less than disrespect of their memory. That cowardice tells us everything we need to know about the choice before our country.

Populists have tried to claim ownership of patriotism and we must take it back.

Real patriotism isn’t wrapping yourself in a flag while tearing down your neighbours. It isn’t exploiting people’s fears or looking to divide communities.

Real patriotism is what our armed forces showed when they deployed to Afghanistan and elsewhere. It’s what their families showed when they said goodbye at RAF Brize Norton, not knowing if they would ever see them again.

Continue reading »

Posted in News | Also tagged afghanistan, british armed forces, donald trump josh babarinde, featured and NATO | 22 Comments

The UK must not be Trump’s unwitting accomplice in dangerous escalation

By Tanya Park | Wed 7th January 2026 - 10:25 am

Over the past week, something alarming has been unfolding at British airbases. At least ten US C-17 cargo aircraft, two AC-130 gunships, and specialised intelligence aircraft have arrived at RAF Fairford and RAF Mildenhall, with reports suggesting elite special operations helicopters may also be present. This isn’t routine. The timing, immediately following Trump’s Venezuela operation, raises urgent questions about what Britain is facilitating from our soil.

Ed Davey has rightly described Nicolás Maduro as “a brutal and illegitimate dictator” – but the Liberal Democrat leader also warned that “unlawful attacks jeopardise safety for all.” That second part is crucial. Trump’s pattern of unauthorised military strikes, over 626 in his first year back in office, now includes capturing a foreign head of state and bombing Iranian nuclear facilities. Now, US forces are staging from British soil for what appears to be their next operation: boarding a Russian-flagged oil tanker in the North Atlantic.

The Marinera is part of a shadow fleet transporting sanctioned oil. Intelligence suggests Venezuelan officials discussed placing armed personnel and air defence systems on tankers. This isn’t routine; it’s a potential armed confrontation with a Russian-flagged vessel that could spark US-Russia military conflict, staged from UK bases.

Trump’s dangerous pattern

This buildup follows an established pattern. Similar deployments from Fort Campbell preceded Venezuela. The Trump administration has conducted over 626 airstrikes in one year, with no Congressional notification, no alliance consultation, and no plan for consequences. The Venezuela operation exemplifies this: a regime change operation disguised as an arrest warrant, while his administration told Congress it wasn’t about regime change.

Starmer’s response has been inadequate. The UK offers only “cautious” reactions while providing infrastructure and diplomatic cover, with no real veto or meaningful consultation.

The risks are immediate. If this tanker boarding becomes violent, if Russian crew members are killed, we face a US-Russia confrontation. Russia will claim piracy and may retaliate with cyber attacks or naval harassment. Because operations launch from British bases, we become implicated in an escalation we neither chose nor control.

Trump’s contempt for the democratic process is clear. When he bombed Iran’s nuclear facilities, only Republicans received advance notice. For Venezuela, no lawmakers were notified. Why would Britain expect better treatment than America’s own Congress?

Where Liberal Democrats stand

Continue reading »

Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged international and trump | 16 Comments

The liberal order is not defended by manners; it is defended by resolve

By Jack Meredith | Wed 7th January 2026 - 8:55 am

On 4 April 1949, 12 nations signed a treaty to establish collective security, combat totalitarianism, and strengthen transatlantic ties: Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America. That treaty came to be known as the North Atlantic Treaty, now more commonly known as NATO.

Now, 77 years later, that same alliance is under threat. The United States of America, under the rule of Donald Trump, is threatening to take control of Greenland, while US officials have refused to rule out military action.

This is truly the darkest timeline. NATO was established to maintain security across the Atlantic and strengthen the ties that bind us. However, Trump has made clear that those ties are not just weak but completely obliterated, existing only when the price is right for Trump and his cronies.

Trump’s refusal to respect sovereignty and international law must be a wake-up call for those who have comforted themselves with the idea that he “would never do anything to us”. He already targets our institutions, strong-arming the NHS into a deal that would raise the price the NHS pays for new medicines by 25%, and carrying out funding cuts, leading some UK universities to cancel research projects due to his “assault on science“.

This is Trump toting his soft power. He is showing us “this is what I can do without raising a finger”. His approach to Ukraine, his attack on Venezuela, his military threats against Denmark are overt displays of his hard power; pulling military support, carrying out invasions and claiming dominion over an entire nation, and then willing threaten further military action against an ally, it all adds up to the same conclusion: Donald Trump does not care about international law, and Donald Trump will not stop until his vision is achieved.

Continue reading »

Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged international and NATO | 3 Comments

Keep calm and carry on urgently re-arming

By Tony Paterson | Wed 17th September 2025 - 1:30 pm

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” , “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.

Continue reading »

Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged armed forces and ukraine | 14 Comments

The UK Government must rethink its AI R&D

By Christian de Vartavan | Wed 10th September 2025 - 11:28 am

The recent shift forcing the Alan Turing Institute toward defence-focused AI research has sparked major questions about the UK’s innovation strategy.

Many argue that the government should have created or funded a dedicated defence AI institution with a clear mission, avoiding dilution of the Institute’s vital civil AI research and social innovation. The sudden pivot caused staff unrest, leadership upheaval, and risked ongoing societal research programmes.

Public trust and accountability are also crucial. National security projects need specialist oversight, ethical governance, and transparency—elements compromised when defence priorities are fused into a broadly purposed public research institute.

The UK already has specialist institutions developing defence AI. The Alan Turing Institute runs the Defence Artificial Intelligence Research (DARe) Centre in collaboration with the Ministry of Defence and intelligence agencies. The Defence Artificial Intelligence Centre (DAIC) integrates AI across military operations, while the AI Security Institute addresses AI safety and security risks. The Defence Innovation Organisation supports industrial partnerships with a significant ring-fenced budget. These dedicated bodies are designed to drive rapid advancements in national security AI.

Defence AI demands specialist infrastructure, security clearance, and operational protocols that a repurposed civil institute is ill-equipped to provide.

Continue reading »

Posted in News | Also tagged AI and science | 4 Comments

The Afghan data breach shows up poor law and appalling Tory Government actions

By Caron Lindsay | Thu 17th July 2025 - 8:04 am

“There are some things that you just can’t polish.”

So I said when i spoke against the Government’s plans to bring secret courts into the area of civil law back in 2013. For some inexplicable reason, Nick Clegg had decided to agree to this dreadful proposal. The party, pretty universally, was livid. That’s one reasons why factions don’t usually work in this party. At the time, the Social Liberal Forum and Liberal Reform were at each other’s throats on economic policy but we were united in standing up for civil liberties. You can read some of the background to that here.

We’ve learned a lot about how secret courts operate in the past couple of days thanks to Lewis Goodall from the News Agents. He found himself subject to a super-injunction back in August 2023 when he learned about the leaking of a data set containing the contact details of everyone who had applied to come to this country under the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy. These were people, 18000 of them, who had worked for the UK Government while we were in Afghanistan and who had targets on their back when the Taliban took over.

Anyway, Goodall is a serious, responsible journalist. When he discovered this story, he went to the Ministry of Defence, making it clear that he had no plans to publish. That didn’t matter. The resulting super injunction was in force until this Tuesday at noon. The second it was lifted, Goodall got out all the stress of the previous 23 months out in a blistering podcast which revealed:

Secret courts and secret courts within secret courts
How many of the 18000 people and their families the Tory Government actually planned to help. Spoiler, it’s less than you think, despite this being the main legal rationale for the super-injunction
How Tory ministers avoided pushing this forward, silencing scrutiny
How much this cost the public purse
How the first judge to hear the case actually suggested to the Government that they go for a super-injunction

If you listen to nothing else today, listen to this now because it shows a chilling use of government power which, the Judge openly remarked, stopped democracy. Judge Martin Chamberlain said it was:

fundamentally objectionable for decisions that affect the lives and safety of thousands of human beings, and involve the commitment of billions of pounds of public money, to be taken in circumstances where they are completely insulated from public debate.

So what have Liberal Democrats had to say about all of this:

Continue reading »

Posted in News and Op-eds | Also tagged afghan data breach, ed davey, featured, helen maguire, lewis goodall, news agents and secret courts | Leave a comment

Let Lib Dems, not Farage, “Reform UK”

By Tony Paterson | Wed 19th March 2025 - 11:55 am

At this time of crisis, the Lib Dems must seize back the `Reform UK’ initiative from Nigel Farage and his ramshackle party. Freedom is at stake.

Voting intentions (polling data from 10 March) are 15% for the Lib Dems and 23% for Reform UK (from 11% and 25% last December). Here’s how to build on this poll hike.

Farage’s stated belief in electoral reform contains an inherent contradiction: while he ostensibly champions PR, his dream of being PM in 2029 hinges on First Past The Post being maintained.

To be recognised as the real party of reform, the Lib Dems must recapture the initiative. First, use PR as a protest vehicle for appealing to voters disenchanted with a system which gave 2/3 of seats to a party with only 1/3 of the votes.

Secondly, keep flagging up Farage’s championing of Putin during the 2024 GE campaign, when, pointing to NATO’s and the EU’s eastward expansion, he claimed that ‘we provoked this war’. Already in 2014, in an interview with GQ magazine, Farage had named Putin as the world leader he most admired. And let’s not forget his many appearances on Russia Today, at least three of them after Putin invaded Crimea in 2014.

But more recently, Farage has been presenting himself as the voice of moderation within his party. We must highlight Farage’s volatility, contrasted with our consistent liberalism.

Ed Davey, who is stalwartly supporting Ukraine, has proposed large increases in our defence spending as a percentage of GDP and, over the past few weeks, has used many of his PMQs to back Ukraine, is best placed to challenge Reform UK over UK military reform. Farage’s well publicised association with Trump makes it hard for him to follow suit. Polling data shows how deeply split Reform voters are over whether their party would do better with or without Farage.

World War III, using modern means of warfare to undermine Western freedom and democracy, has already begun. (See Economist `Want to stop a third world war?’, 30.5.24). Warfare today is hybrid: insidious, dangerous, but not always obvious. It includes ‘grey zone’ warfare: ‘salami-slicing’ (as Putin did to Crimea in 2014, severing it from Ukraine while causing little Western reaction), cyber warfare, sabotaging crucial infrastructure, etc.

Ideologically, the strategy involves harnessing populism to build up far-right parties across Europe, including in the UK. How can we jolt the country as a whole into recognising that we, on the other hand, stand for freedom and democracy?

Continue reading »

Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged ed davey, nigel farage, party strategy, reform uk and ukraine | 4 Comments

The SNP’s Defence delusions: A fantasy that puts Scotland at risk

By David McKenzie | Wed 12th March 2025 - 5:08 pm

The Scottish National Party has long promoted an unrealistic vision of Scotland’s defence in the event of independence. Their incoherent and reckless approach, outlined in the deeply flawed 2014 White Paper, demonstrates an alarming lack of seriousness in dealing with modern security threats. With a resurgent Russia invading Ukraine and probing NATO’s defences, the world becoming increasingly unstable and Donald Trump back in the White House openly questioning America’s commitment to NATO, the SNP’s defence policies are not just inadequate, they are dangerous.

The 2014 White Paper proposed a budget of just £2.5 billion for Scotland’s armed forces barely enough to maintain a credible defence structure. It assumed Scotland would inherit assets from the UK Armed Forces, despite no legal mechanism ensuring this. It envisioned a ‘Scottish Defence Force’ with a handful of frigates, a small army, and a limited air force, all while rejecting the very defence arrangements that currently protect Scotland. The reality of setting up a military from scratch was entirely ignored. Where would personnel be trained? How would equipment be procured? What alliances would Scotland rely on, given that SNP membership remains broadly opposed to NATO? These are fundamental questions that remain unanswered.

The SNP has no serious plan for dealing with the threats Scotland faces. Russian military aircraft routinely test the UK’s air defences, often requiring RAF jets to intercept them as they approach Scottish-UK airspace. Currently these intrusions are swiftly dealt with by highly trained personnel operating from Lossiemouth. An independent Scotland, with a small air force and no serious defence infrastructure, would struggle to respond adequately. If the SNP still intends to pursue another independence referendum in the next Scottish Parliament, they must be forced to explain how they would protect Scotland from these threats. The UK’s integrated defence network, intelligence-sharing agreements, and military alliances provide Scotland with essential security. An independent Scotland would be left exposed.

Continue reading »

Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged Scotland | 7 Comments

A distinctive defence niche for the Lib Dems to seize

By Duncan Brack | Mon 10th March 2025 - 10:35 am

In the last couple of weeks, policy on defence has suddenly moved centre-stage – to the point where even Lib Dem Voice has an article about it! The support given to Ukraine by our parliamentary party is no less than one would expect, but perhaps we should look a little deeper, as there’s an idea for making defence spending more effective which the Liberal Democrats are ideally placed to champion.

Much political and media attention is focused on the need to spend more on defence as a percentage of GDP. Starmer realised the significance of this and the need to act urgently ahead of his visit to the White House. He shifted from his 2024 manifesto position of 2.5 per cent ‘when resources allow’ to 2.5 per cent from 2027, with funding coming from reductions in international development assistance.

But we need to be clear on what the money will buy. What capabilities does the UK need? Also, how do we ensure value for money – maximising the benefit from each pound, both in terms of defence capability but also as a contribution to UK jobs and economic growth, rather than US imports?

Currently the UK’s defence, intelligence and security arrangements are effectively joined at the hip with the US. Our nuclear deterrent is supplied by the US. Our intelligence comes largely from the US through the Five Eyes network, led by the US. Much of our kit is purchased from the US and our command and control is dependent on US technology.

So a pressing question is whether we now need to establish our own defence capability independent of the US. In the short term, this may be difficult – hence the need to maintain a relationship with President Trump. But in the medium term, and particularly in how the UK uses its increased defence budget, there is an urgent need to move away from US dependence, as the last few weeks have underlined.

We could attempt to do this on a UK-only basis. Or we could attempt it through much greater cooperation and integration across Europe. While grateful for European support, the Ukrainians have experienced at first hand the difficulties of fighting a war using what they have described as a ‘military zoo’. The EU has 12 types of battle tank, while the US has one.

This, then, is the opportunity. At a time when the UK and its European partners need to step up expenditure on defence when resources are limited, it is vital that the extra money is spent as efficiently and effectively as possible. Crucially, if the UK is to realise economies of scale and interoperability and have the ability to act without relying on the US, then Europe’s military capabilities must be integrated much more closely. We need to create a single European defence industry capable of supplying our needs, ensuring European control of the technology, and ensuring that the economic benefits, including jobs, are shared fairly with our partners on this side of the Atlantic.

Continue reading »

Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged featured, the yorkists and what would paddy do? | 14 Comments

Observations of an Expat: Buy American, Save Ukraine.

By Tom Arms | Sat 8th March 2025 - 9:11 am

There is an outside, long shot chance of saving Ukraine and the Western Alliance—Buy American.

I don’t mean American cars or cereal. I mean something which really costs—American weaponry, American satellite links and American intelligence.

The money is there, $300-plus billion in frozen Russian assets that was being held back for Ukrainian reconstruction. There is not much point in saving it for reconstruction purposes if there is no country to reconstruct.

On top of that the normally frugal Germans are about to remove the EU debt brake and leap into a defense spending spree. And across Europe taxes are set to rise and welfare budgets cut to pay for what is now a defense emergency.

The purpose of the rapid rise in defense spending is to fill the huge hole left by the withdrawal of the United States from Ukraine and probably Europe as a whole. The problem is that no matter how big the budget it will take at least five—probably more—years to rebuild military forces and defense industries, and Putin is banging on Europe’s door today.

That is why British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, French President Emmanuel Macron and Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelensky pressed Donald Trump for security guarantees as part of any ceasefire agreement.

The problem is that Trump does not see any advantage for him—or America—in providing such guarantees. It involves expensive aid until a ceasefire agreement is reached; commits US forces to a clash with Russia if Putin—as expected—breaks the ceasefire and potentially interferes with his plans to buddy up with fellow autocrat and would block access to Russian natural resources.

So give him a cash incentive with a bit of ego boosting thrown in for good measure. This is the kind of enticement Trump easily understands.

To start with the US gets the mineral rights deal he is demanding for past aid. Next,Trump is the recognised point man in negotiations with Vladimir Putin, but he has to consult and keep informed European leaders and Zelensky.

Continue reading »

Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged ukraine and United states of America | 13 Comments

Ed Davey: Britain must lead on defence AND aid

By Caron Lindsay | Wed 26th February 2025 - 9:25 am

In an email to Party members, Ed Davey set out his support for the Prime Minister’s plans to raise defence spending – though he urged him to go faster and to get all-party talks going to work out how. However, he criticised the fact that it was being funded from the international aid budget. The Liberal Democrats have long championed international aid and it was our Michael Moore who successfully enshrined the previous 0.7% target in law back in 2015.

Watch Ed’s reaction to the Prime Minister’s statement yesterday:

Ed said in his email:

Today, the Prime Minister did what we’ve been urging him to do for years: commit to increasing Britain’s defence spending to 2.5% of GDP.

That is essential. With Vladimir Putin waging war on our continent, and Donald Trump in the White House cosying up to him, this is the most perilous moment for Europe in my lifetime.

Trump is threatening not only to betray the brave Ukrainian people, who have heroically resisted Putin’s war machine for the past three years, but also to undermine peace and security across Europe – including here in the UK.

In the face of that threat, the UK must step up and lead in Europe – and that has to include a big boost to defence spending. Today I urged the Prime Minister to go even further and bring all parties together to get to 3% of GDP as soon as possible.

But while we agree with the Government on the urgent need to spend more on defence, we have a clear difference of opinion on how to fund it. We have set out a clear plan to raise that money by increasing the Digital Services Tax on the profits of social media firms and other tech giants.

But Labour – along with the Conservatives and Reform – say it should instead be paid for by cutting international development spending. That is a big mistake.

The Conservatives already cut back on international aid when they were in power, and that did enormous damage to the UK’s soft power around the world. Deeper cuts now – at the same time as Donald Trump and Elon Musk are gutting America’s aid programmes – will only leave a vacuum for Russia and China to fill, strengthening the hand of authoritarian regimes and further undermining our security.

Continue reading »

Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged ed davey and international aid | 3 Comments

The price of peace: Budgeting for a secure future

By Paul Wheeldon | Sun 23rd February 2025 - 12:55 pm

History offers a sobering lesson. Winston Churchill warned of the perils of underinvestment in defence long before the threat of Nazi aggression materialized. His insistence on prioritising military strength, though initially disregarded, ultimately underscored a simple truth: a nation must be prepared to protect itself if it is to safeguard its values and its future. Today, we stand at a similar crossroads.

Recent polling from YouGov reveals something both encouraging and challenging for us as Liberal Democrats. Our supporters show a striking commitment to the cause: 42% strongly agree that we should continue providing military assistance to Ukraine—the highest among all political parties. Seventy percent back the idea of British peacemakers being deployed to Ukraine, and 57% believe that our defence spending should be nudged upward from 2.3% to 3%. These figures are a clear nod to our belief that supporting Ukraine is not just a moral duty but a strategic imperative. It is a vote of confidence in the values that have guided us through turbulent times.

Yet, even as these numbers celebrate our commitment to international security, a contradiction emerges. A significant 44% of respondents, the highest of any political party, insist that maintaining public services should take precedence—even if that means defence spending cannot be increased. This division is not just a statistic—it is a reminder that peace, however desirable, comes at a price.

This poll lays bare a tension that is as old as democracy itself: balancing the immediate needs of our citizens with the long-term necessities of national security. History teaches us that neglecting defence can leave a nation vulnerable. Churchill’s era was a stark lesson; ignoring the call for robust defence spending had dire consequences. Today, the price of peace must be weighed with the same seriousness. While we cherish our public services, we cannot ignore the imperative to safeguard our nation and its allies.

Some might argue that there’s no room for increased expenditure without impacting vital public services. Yet, the very strength of our public institutions depends on a secure and stable environment. Our current political debate—even within our own ranks—echoes a familiar refrain: the challenge of raising funds without stifling growth. Recent criticisms of the Labour government’s stance, which leaves little fiscal flexibility by refusing to adjust major taxes, further underscore this conundrum.

Continue reading »

Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged defence spending and national security | 3 Comments

Love is not enough

By Tony Paterson | Mon 23rd December 2024 - 9:28 am

`Love is Enough’ is a wonderful song. Well done to Ed Davey and the Bath Philharmonia Young Carers Choir on having targeted the target Christmas Number 1 spot. As a sentiment, though, it only reflects one side of the essential components that make us who we are as a political movement and segment of British society.

At Party Conference in Bournemouth in 2023, I helped found a new Affiliated Organisation called Liberal Democrat Friends of Ukraine, focusing primarily on the bellicose military objective of helping Ukraine to defend itself against Putin’s aggression. Humanitarian support and reconstruction aid are our other priorities. It was the right thing to do – for Ukraine but also for Britain.

That Conference in September 2023 passed a belligerent motion urging the Government, `in defence of liberal values’, to:-

Do all it realistically can, in view of Putin’s brazen actions, to help arm Ukraine, including with longer-range precision weapons,…. to defeat Russia. Continue to strengthen the supply of British arms and ammunition to Ukraine…

Fantastic. Lib Dem Friends of Uraine works closely with sister AOs like the Armed Forces and Hong Kong. We are about values. Membership of Lib Dem Friends of Ukraine alone has surged to about 350, much of it since Brighton 2024. So many Party members care about this.

Standing back from the `Peace Dividend’ mindset that has catastrophically got us, since 1989, to where, militarily, we are now, we can see how Utopian the daydream was.

Liberal, advanced democracies, including ours, have slid into a vicious circle of 1939 ostrich groupthink.

All parties seem to think that voters would question whoever was honest enough to spell out the substantially higher share of GDP that would be needed to re-arm, and adequately defend Ukraine and ourselves.

Responding to this, they collectively encouraged voters to believe that there was no danger – leaving the UK insufficiently capable, apart from our excellent at sea nuclear deterrent.

Continue reading »

Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged ukraine | 6 Comments

Observations of an Expat: Defense Cooperation – Back Door to Europe

By Tom Arms | Sat 24th August 2024 - 11:42 am

If Britain’s Labour government is looking for it, there is a gaping door back into a new relationship with Europe – defense cooperation.

And this door has the added advantage that increased defense cooperation between Britain and its European NATO allies is becoming essential to counter growing American disillusionment with Europe.

Whether it is a MAGA-fied isolationism or a pivot to Asia, it is clear that foreign policymakers in both the Democratic and Republican parties are questioning America’s commitment to Europe.

For those on both sides of the English Channel this creates an opportunity to start to repair the damage of eight years of Conservative Party Brexiteering. It could also strengthen European defences and, ironically, help to retain the American nuclear umbrella.

Europe faced the problem of American isolationism and problems with Asia before—in the run-up to the creation NATO and within a year of its founding. When the idea of linking America to the defense of post-war Europe was first mooted, Senator Arthur Vandenberg, leader of the Republican-controlled Senate, insisted on proof that the Europeans were jointly committed to their own defense.

This was proven by British Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin with a 50-year Anglo-French Treaty of Alliance and Mutual Assistance in 1947 and then a year later with an extension of the mutual defense pact to include Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg. Vandenberg and the Republicans were impressed, and on April 4, 1949 the North Atlantic Treaty was signed.

A year later Europe panicked when North Korea invaded South Korea. What if the Soviet Union took advantage of Korea to attack Europe? Could America afford to fight on two fronts? Which was the more important to Washington—Europe or Asia? The result was the Pleven Plan (named after French Prime Minister Renee Pleven). It proposed strengthening the European arm of NATO with a European Army headed up by a European defense minister.

Continue reading »

Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged europe and NATO | 8 Comments

The Conservatives have just announced a big increase in defence spending – how should the Lib Dems respond?

By Nick Baird | Wed 24th April 2024 - 12:45 pm

Yesterday Rishi Sunak announced a plan to substantially increase UK defence spending, up to 2.5% of GDP by 2030. This announcement moves the Tory position from an aspiration to achieve this “when economic circumstances allow” to a firm plan with actual budget cash numbers from this year through to 2030.

The timing is interesting – it is less than two months since the Government passed its Spring Budget without any attempt to fund this aspiration, but since then two things have happened. One is that Keir Starmer moved Labour’s policy position to match the unfunded “aspiration”, and (perhaps more importantly) the Daily Mail ran a sustained campaign demanding a defence spending increase.

Beyond the spin and hyperbole of the speech and press release, the Government has also issued a supporting document with more detail, available here and the simultaneous release of this slick and glossy document indicates the Government has been working on this for a while.

In many respects, this is a sensible plan which actually aligns quite closely with the Lib Dem policy “Liberal Values in a Dangerous World” adopted at this year’s Spring Conference, including investing in people to tackle the recruitment and retention crisis within the Armed Forces and civilian MOD, providing a long term procurement pipeline to give industry confidence to invest in capacity and R&D, and reiterating the importance of alliances.

There are a couple of important things currently missing from the Government’s plans however. One is that the Government’s announcements so far do not commit to reverse the current cuts to the Armed Forces, for example in the size of the Army or the Typhoon fighter fleet. These are crucial issues, as the only way the UK could have more capacity available to fight a big war in the next 2-3 years is to reverse planned cuts now.

Continue reading »

Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged 2024 general election, defence spending and featured | 29 Comments

Defending Britain: A call for preparedness, inclusion and investment

By Mo Waqas | Fri 26th January 2024 - 3:53 pm

As I reflect on the current geopolitical landscape and the looming possibility of conflict, I can’t help but feel a sense of urgency for Britain to be ready to defend itself. Recently, General Sir Patrick Sanders, the outgoing Chief of the General Staff, issued a stark warning about the potential for war with Russia, sparking a crucial conversation about our nation’s preparedness and the necessary investments to safeguard our future.

The need for preparedness echoes loudly in today’s uncertain times.

The consensus is clear – we must be ready to repel any potential misadventure from Russia. History has taught us that readiness is not a luxury but a strategic necessity. From military leaders to concerned citizens, the call for preparedness emphasizes the need for a robust defence apparatus.

However, preparedness alone is not enough. General Sir Patrick Sanders, a vocal critic of troop cuts and military spending reductions, urges substantial investments in our armed forces. He emphasizes the urgency of expanding the size of the army and highlights the importance of well-trained, well-equipped soldiers who are adequately compensated for their service. Our strength doesn’t just lie in numbers but in capabilities and resilience.

Amid discussions of military strength, we must also recognize the unique power embedded in Britain’s diversity and inclusion. Our nation’s strength extends beyond military might to the unity forged by individuals from diverse backgrounds who call Britain their home. To harness this strength, it is imperative that all citizens, regardless of their origins, feel included and valued in matters of national defence. Inclusion is not only a moral imperative but a strategic advantage.

True national strength is not solely measured in the might of our armed forces but in the collective will and resilience of our people.

Continue reading »

Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged armed forces | 26 Comments

Mothballing the UK’s amphibious assault ships would be short-sighted and foolish

By Charlie Murphy | Wed 17th January 2024 - 10:44 am

Image available with for reuse under the OGL (Open Government License).

At a time when the world is at its least stable, possibly since the end of the Cold War more than 30 years ago, the mothballing of two of the Royal Navy’s most critical assets is under open consideration by the Tories.

The Government are once again considering mothballing – ie. indefinitely laying up – both HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark, two amphibious assault, command and supply ships operated by the Royal Navy. These are the only two ships of this type which are still in operation in the fleet, capable of operating with hundreds of Royal Marines onboard and carrying a well-equipped landing force. Both of the ships would otherwise have service lives well into the 2030s.

These ships are critical for the kind of security environment we are approaching. The effects of climate change will be profound across the globe, and these effects are already springing new threats and conflicts, including in both Syria and Nigeria. Some significant states are critically exposed to security threats around climate change, and some are already perilously close to state collapse. If there has ever been a moment we have needed the kind of ships that allow us to operate in theatres outside of our immediate neighbourhood, it is now.

However, not content with short-termist policymaking applying to the NHS, planning, housing, local government, and virtually every other area of the public realm, something as fundamental as defence and security is now in the crosshairs.

Even if we park the point about security for a second, these ships are mainstays of our international capacity. As a party we firmly believe in our responsibility to offer humanitarian assistance and international aid, which must in turn commit us to resisting the apparent fate of these ships. HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark have been essential for British humanitarian efforts across the globe, with deployments around the world, including to the Mediterranean during the climate-induced civil war in Syria.

Continue reading »

Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark | 17 Comments

Securing a liberal Britain in hard times

By Noel Hadjimichael | Fri 3rd March 2023 - 9:49 am

Getting elected locally, becoming a citizen and living in freedom or security should be tackled in the right order. I just did the opposite. Arriving from Australia as an immigrant in 2016 (pre Brexit), getting elected a Councillor last May and becoming an UK citizen last month was a journey that made me think: how do I as a LibDem contribute to the safety, security and sustainability of our country? There are no easy answers but some clear pointers to what we might need: progressive, practical and patriotic steps to make Britain its liberal best.

I wrote back in March 2022 on LibDem Voice (Defence and Security: at the heart of liberal societies) about a growing think tank based at the National Liberal Club that reaches hundreds across the UK and the world by hybrid talks and expert discussions. I am also an Armed Forces Champion of my Council (shared with a colleague) with responsibility to the whole community. Veterans, serving members, cadets and their families expect all local governments to keep the covenant between community and those who serve.

But that is the smaller arena and the local or narrow pathway.

We as LibDems are at the heart of many national debates on matters of significance: the war in Ukraine, the risk of further Russian aggression, the role of China as a strategic competitor to our internationalist and liberal values for starters. Times have never been harder since the 1980s.

We also remain the voice of many who are deeply disgusted by this shabby Conservative government and are unconvinced by the rising Labour Opposition. Data and polling may suggest that our voters and supporters are well informed, educated and engaged on the big issues – the environment, education, cost of living crisis economics and social justice. But we are also the proud custodians of traditions of liberalism, social democracy and dissenting progressive values that reflect on the defence of the realm, the international order and our broader obligations to allies, partners and neighbours.

The emergence of an associated organisation “LibDem Friends of the Armed Forces” is no surprise. The upcoming debate at York Conference in less than three weeks on an enhanced/evolved defence policy fit for purpose and electorally sound for the times we face is another natural step.

Continue reading »

Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged 2023 spring conference, featured and security | 5 Comments

What are the UK’s Armed Forces for?

By Nick Baird | Sun 20th February 2022 - 10:30 am

It may seem an obvious question, but I have never heard a frank and honest public discussion that fully defines the purpose of our Armed Forces. The current crisis in Ukraine has highlighted the stark contrast between our elected politicians wanting to talk tough and appear as a big player on the world stage versus the reality of what we have equipped and resourced our Armed Forces to actually do.

It would be easy to find a broad consensus that they should defend the UK, and it’s Overseas Territories and Dependencies. Most would agree that we have treaty obligations under NATO that we are obliged to meet, and few would argue against using their equipment and expertise to support disaster relief and respond to emergencies.

Beyond that however, should the UK maintain an expeditionary capability, able to conduct operations far away and intervene in conflicts that don’t directly affect UK territory or NATO allies?

It’s an important question in many ways, not least because the Armed Forces needed to do that look quite different to what is needed just to conduct defensive operations close to home. As a nation, we need to collectively decide what is our place in the world, then we have a duty and obligation to resource and equip our Forces accordingly. I suggest that we are currently failing. Numbers of troops, tanks, warships and combat aircraft are at historic lows, having been cut again recently by the Conservative Government (while boasting of increased defence spending).

Continue reading »

Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged armed forces and international | 26 Comments

Observations of an Expat: Underwater Problems

By Tom Arms | Sat 18th September 2021 - 8:30 am

The Anglo-American decision to sell nuclear submarines to Australia has launched a new round of geopolitical musical chairs with long-lasting repercussions.

The Americans, Australians and British are very happy with their new seats and the new nuclear sub deal and the creation of a new alliance called AUKUS.

The French are furious with the three allies. They have been left standing on the outside. It completely scuppers their $50 billion deal to sell the Australians electric submarines. It also weakens the Franco-British defence agreement that had become one of the pillars of the Western Alliance. “It is a stab in the back,” exclaimed the furious French foreign minister Jean-Yves le Drian.

The Chinese are, of course, livid.

Continue reading »

Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged australia | 11 Comments

Reformation – without a security and defence policy the Lib Dems are toast

By Paul Fisher | Thu 3rd September 2020 - 12:30 pm

Embed from Getty Images

Uncomfortable as it is for people of a liberal and democratic disposition to face the harsh realities of a rough and tumble world, the government must deal with the bully who disregards the norms of international rule-based peaceful co-existence. The same applies within the nation-state; it is the government which polices the law of the land and in both cases is there to provide the secure infrastructure which supports the well-being of the citizen and society.

In a globalised world, how on earth (literally) as liberals can we perpetuate the emotive implication of them and us? Citizens everywhere belong to the global village, and we need to contribute to the policing of the village rules for co-existence. As a nation-state, we should focus on our contribution outside, or external to, our part of our village.

From an international standpoint, and we are internationalist, aren’t we? The first sacred cow which has to be scrapped is the concept of foreign policy with its implicit narrative of “foreigners”. The second sacred cow for slaughter is to replace the Foreign and Commonwealth Office with a Ministry of External Affairs. Oh dear, I see the massacre turning into a blood bath!

Continue reading »

Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged foreign affairs and international affairs | 9 Comments

A Critique of Liberal Democrat Defence policy, Part 3

By Stuart Crawford | Sat 27th June 2020 - 7:00 pm

This is the third of a series of three posts. The first part can be read here and the second part can be read here.

The following is a critique of the defence policy outlined in the Liberal Democrat Manifesto published for the 2019 General Election and presumably still extant at time of writing (June 2020). Manifesto commitments are reproduced verbatim followed by my commentary.

Page 91: A Secure Defence in the 21^st Century (continued)

Support the Armed Forces Covenant and ongoing work to support veterans’ mental health.

Comment. The Armed Forces Covenant is advisory only and unenforceable. We should commit to embedding it in law.

Improve the quality of service housing by bringing the MoD into line with other landlords, giving tenants the same legal rights to repair and maintenance as private tenants.

Comment. Agreed, most important.

This defence policy manifesto extract seems to have been written in a void outside the context of current defence developments by somebody/ies who has/ve no idea of defence and security matters.

The problems with the UK’s armed services are clear to see. A huge hole in defence spending, ageing, obsolescent, and lack of equipment across all three services, a real problem with recruiting and retention (retention particularly) and an unrealistic over commitment of scarce resources. This toxic combination can result in low morale were it not for the high standard of training and leadership that the armed forces continue to enjoy.

Continue reading »

Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged manifesto 2019 | 8 Comments

A Critique of Liberal Democrat Defence policy, Part 2

By Stuart Crawford | Fri 26th June 2020 - 7:00 pm

This is the second of a series of three posts. The first part can be read here.

The following is a critique of the defence policy outlined in the Liberal Democrat Manifesto published for the 2019 General Election and presumably still extant at time of writing (June 2020). Manifesto commitments are reproduced verbatim followed by my commentary.

Page 91: A Secure Defence in the 21^st Century (continued)

Maintain a minimum nuclear deterrent. We propose continuing with the Dreadnought programme, the submarine-based replacement for Vanguard, but procuring three boats instead of four, and moving to a medium-readiness responsive posture. This would mean replacing continuous at-sea deterrence – instead maintaining the deterrent through measures such as unpredictable and irregular patrolling patterns.

Comment. I suspect this is an attempt at compromise to show that the party is essentially anti nuclear weapons philosophically but also serious about defence. This policy is neither fish nor fowl and needs radical revision.

Continue reading »

Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged manifesto 2019 | 11 Comments

A critique of Liberal Democrat Defence policy, Part 1

By Stuart Crawford | Thu 25th June 2020 - 6:59 pm

The following is a critique of the defence policy outlined in the Liberal Democrat Manifesto published for the 2019 General Election and presumably still extant at time of writing (June 2020). Manifesto commitments are reproduced verbatim followed by my commentary.

Page 91: A Secure Defence in the 21^st Century

The Armed Forces play a vital role in the defence of the nation: government should have a deep sense of duty to properly support service personnel and veterans. Neither the Conservatives nor Labour have shown a commitment to this: the Conservative government in particular has spread chronic low morale, misspent money on vanity projects and failed to recruit and retain people with the skills needed for 21st century warfare. Liberal Democrats are the only party who understand the new challenges faced by the Armed Forces and who are committed to properly supporting them.

Comment. This is bland, anodyne and says nothing of any consequence on what the party thinks the armed forces are for and what they ought to do. It talks vaguely about “new challenges” and the need to support the forces without saying what either of those might be. Do we actually know?

Continue reading »

Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged manifesto 2019 | 8 Comments

The truth about Layla Moran’s trip to Estonia

By Caron Lindsay | Sat 19th January 2019 - 11:00 am

I saw on Facebook over the holidays that Layla was off to Estonia and just assumed that she was off on a jolly.

Not so much, as her website reveals.

She was actually in the Baltic state to take part training exercises with British troops.

Layla, a former teacher, was part of a cross-party group of 7 MPs that spent several days with armed forces personnel as they carried out training exercises and duties in Estonia.

More than 800 British personnel are currently stationed in the Baltic state as part of NATO’s ‘enhanced forward presence’ along with Danish, Canadian and Estonian forces. The scheme is designed to deter Russian aggression.

The visit was part of the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme which sees MPs undergo military training and go on exercises alongside armed forces personnel to help inform better decision-making on defence issues in Parliament.

Layla Moran said:

Continue reading »

Posted in News | Also tagged estonia and layla moran | 3 Comments

Most Read

Op-eds

The social media ban is illiberal, unworkable, and our stance is the wrong one (Cian Tynan)
Caring doesn’t STOP at 67- so why should Carer’s Support Payment or Carer’s Allowance (Amanda Clark)
WATCH: Charles Kennedy Memorial Lecture (The Voice)
J.M. Keynes “Anything we can actually do, we can afford.” (David Moon)
Mathew on Monday: Banning Under-16s from Social Media is the Wrong Answer (Mathew Hulbert)

Advert

Recent Comments

Tristan Ward
@ Abrial Jerram "Our focus should be on ensuring that the lowest living standards in society are sufficient for flourishing" This is of course consistent ...
Tristan Ward
"A better slogan, to a liberal at any rate, is “Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite” " I agree, but my fear is that it's a bit like building a house. Everyone ...
Tristan Ward
@ Tanya "Taxing extreme wealth to fund a sufficient floor for everyone is the mechanism. " Well it might be if there was enough "extreme wealth" to fund a...
Abrial Jerram
@Julian Ingram you are mostly right, the main problem is that it is seemingly impossible to come to a consensus on the long-term effect of AI on our job market....
Tristan Ward
@Neil Hickman " call it what it really was – a tax on unearned income. " This of course is simply wrong. If you make your capital available to someon...