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.
Imagine if we could reframe this debate. Rather than viewing defence spending and public service funding as mutually exclusive, we could see them as two halves of a larger picture—a picture where innovative solutions such as defence bonds or targeted NHS taxes or as Ed Davey suggests, raising the digital sales tax, all of which could provide the necessary financial boost. I am certain that among our members are fresh ideas on how to balance the books without sacrificing our commitment to security.
The bottom line is this: our pride in standing by Ukraine, in championing a strong defence, must be matched by our willingness to engage in tough fiscal debates. The contradictions in the poll are not a sign of weakness but a call to action. They remind us that our beloved nation has always thrived by confronting hard truths head-on.
As Liberal Democrats, we have reason to be proud of our principled support for Ukraine. But let us also be honest about the price of peace. It is time to ask ourselves—how can we ensure that our legacy is not one of complacency but of bold, thoughtful action? The future will judge us not just by the battles we fight abroad, but by the decisions we make at home. The conversation is open, and every idea counts.
* Paul Wheeldon is a Lib Dem member and former councillor with an interest in defence and foreign affairs.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Professor Joad sees his play at the Theatre Royal, Northampton
The DVLA's problem with number plates
Is Kier Starmer the new John Major?
Roland
David Raw
Chloe
Tom Bailey
3 Comments
I’m afraid Winston Churchill didn’t “warn of the perils of underinvestment in defence long before the threat of Nazi aggression materialised”.
As Secretary of State for Air and War in the Lloyd George Coalition in 1919 he introduced the ‘ten year rule’ which cut military expenditure. Later, as a by now rejoined Conservative, as Chancellor of the Exchequer in the1920’s, he reinforced that policy and cut even more under Baldwin.
David, you are absolutely right about Churchill’s attitude to defence expenditure in the post-WW1 era up to the mid 1920s, because like so many others he fondly imaged that there was a “peace dividend” to spend on social and infrastructure recovery. The fact is that there was no such recovery (resulting in the Depression on the late 1920s) does not alter the fact. But, to mis-quote Keynes, “when the facts change, I change my mind”. As Keynes did correctly forecast, the severe penalties which the victors imposed on Germany post 1918 did lead to the rise of Hitler and Nazism, but Keynes was not listened to when what he was saying was absolutely true (read the Skidelsky biographies), which is why Churchill then realised the coming storm that was on its way and began advocating re-armament. If you look at the level of defence spending in the 1930s, the failure to boost spending at that time led to Hitler deciding to launch aggression in the same way as Russia today. The consequence was that by the 1940s Britain had to go to a total war footing which meant that 50% of its GDP was being spend on defence. We need to learn that lesson and to not repeat the errors of the 1930s.
Understand too Putin’s ambitions. He envisions dividing up the western world between American and Russian spheres of influence, with the “natural” frontier being the middle of the Atlantic. And he is playing the long game to achieve those hemispheric ambitions.
I have also been an advocate of reducing defence spending in the past. But that position is no longer tenable. I want to save public services; but those services will not be saved if Russia (or any other fascistic regime) triumphs. And we can boost our spending without making the poorest in our society bear the cost, as has been argued in these comments over the past few days.