Posted on

Is whose interests does the government govern?

Christine Shawcroft peeps behind the curtain of democratically elected governments and asks whose interests are actually represented by cutting welfare to increase military spending.

In the golden olden days of the Daily Mirror under the leadership of Hugh Cudlipp, the paper used to specialise in front pages entirely consisting of huge black headlines saying things like, ‘Are we all bloody mad?’. One could be forgiven for thinking that they were several decades ahead of their time.

We no longer have even the shreds of a left-leaning daily press, the Mirror having been consumed by celebrity gossip long ago, and the Guardian having more recently completely capitulated to the British establishment. But if ever an independent media were needed to question the sanity of what is going on worldwide, that time is now.

It is being accepted as normal for multi-national corporations to run the world in their interests, having subverted democracy by the simple expedient of purchasing all the political parties. An American observer recently commented that the US is back in the 19th century, when there was no semblance of democracy and the country was run by the powerful.

Here in Europe, we seem to have been catapulted back into the feudal Middle Ages, when the peasants were kept in line by the aristocracy. We may have the appearance of democratically elected governments, but a close look at what they actually do shows that they certainly aren’t operating in the interests of those who elected them.

The Labour government’s welfare cuts in order to spend more on the military are a case in point. Wildly unpopular, with 71% of Labour members opposed to their measures, the government insists that military spending will benefit the economy and create jobs. And who told them this? Why, the arms manufacturers, of course. The same ones who gave them large donations in the run up to the general election.

Fortunately, we have research done for the Scottish government to back us up. Military spending does not create jobs. The armed forces can kill people more easily at a distance with drones; the role of boots on the ground is rapidly becoming obsolete. Spending on public services creates far more jobs than military spending, and spending on health services creates two and a half times more jobs. So clearly, although the government pretends their focus is on job creation (all the while making cuts which can only lead to job losses), clearly something else is going on.

Keir Starmer insists that the defence of the country has been run down, so he has to commit huge sums of money to national security. Europe is in danger of a Russian invasion, so we all have to spend more and more on weapons.

He seems to think that assuming a leadership role in this new Cold War will enable him to strut around the world stage like Winston Churchill. Yet NATO already vastly outspends the Russians on armaments. Our own country has enough nuclear weapons to destroy the planet five times over.

Add up all the nukes held by all the nuclear powers and there’s enough to destroy the solar system. If we really needed more military spending, we could fund it via a wealth tax, which even Tory voters back. But it is opposed by the wealthy.

Some of the wealthiest are arms firms CEOs. So, they make shedloads from government spending, then hang on to their sheds by lobbying the government party (to which they made huge donations) not to increase their taxes.

Are we all bloody mad?

This article first appeared in the May 2025 edition of Original Labour Briefing

Posted on

‘The government is making all the wrong choices’

In an exclusive blog for CND, Diane Abbott MP argues the government is making all the wrong choices, implementing austerity whilst significantly increasing military spending. Concern is not confined to peace activists. Two national newspapers have made the link, with one ‘splashing on its front page that the government is creating a warfare state’.

Abbott’s Early Day Motion, EDM 925 says the billions spent on Trident are a waste of public funds and calls on the government to reverse plans to increase defence spending and redirect funds into public ser vices, international development and climate action. Ask your MP to sign.

Posted on

Lakenheath blockade breaks the silence on US nukes returning to Britain

Carol Turner reports on a successful blockade of Lakenheath airbase

Despite government silence, news that US nuclear weapons are returning to Britain is at last beginning to get through. CND members from across the country gathered at the main gate of Lakenheath airbase to join a blockade which marked the end of a successful two-week peace camp, organised by the Lakenheath Alliance for Peace (LAP) coalition.

Lakenheath, in the heart of the Suffolk countryside, has the biggest presence of US military forces in Britain – exposing its less than honest claim to be an RAF base. Lakenheath hosts the US Airforce 48th Fighter Wing, tasked with providing ‘worldwide responsive combat airpower and support’ which is ‘capable of dominating any adversary’.

Palestinians are among the so-called adversaries the US forces based there are currently helping to ‘dominate’. F35 bombers fly from Lakenheath, in support of Israel’s attacks on the Occupied territories.

LAP activities during the April peace camp included a War Crimes and Genocide Day highlighting the complicity of the US, UK, and NATO in Israel’s genocidal war against Gaza. Past attacks from Lakenheath include Libya in 1986 and combat missions against Afghanistan from 2001 and Iraq in 2023. Other peace camp activity days included an international conference attended by guests from across Europe and beyond, and a Greenham Women day. 

Around 250 people took part in the blockade on Saturday 26 April, including two CND coaches from London. An impressive list of banners. I recall seeing them from Wales, York, Plymouth, Quakers, London Peace Pagoda – including nearby Norwich and Cambridge.

Fine weather and a carnival atmosphere notwithstanding, there were seven arrests from among those who chose not to heed the police call to disperse at the end of the afternoon.

CND General Secretary Sophie Bolt said nuclear weapons don’t make us safer, they make us a target. She expressed solidarity with those arrested after the successful three-hour shut down of the main entrance to the base. ‘Rather than arresting people for peacefully protesting the return of US nuclear weapons to Britain,’ Sophie said, ‘the clear violations of international law facilitated by the British government should be investigated.’

Check out:

  • CND’s press release on the blockade
  • Labour CND’s model motion on Lakenheath
  • Visit CND for more information and what you can do.
  • Lakenheath Alliance for Peace is a coalition of local, national, and international groups dedicated to preventing the return of US nuclear weapons to Lakenheath. LAP holds monthly vigils at the base.

This article first appeared in Labour Outlook

Posted on

Labour CND’s getting a make-over

Labour CND launched our first podcast, an interview with defence economist Prof Ron Smith on the day of Chancellor Rachel Reeve’s spring statement to parliament. Take a listen, you’ll find Ron has some surprising things to say about the economy, jobs, and Trident.

Introducing podcasts is just part of an overhaul of our all our digital comms. Take a look at our eye-catching social media posts like the ones above, you’ll find us @LabourCND. Watch out for a new improved and regular newsletter next month too; and come back to our re-vamped website which will be up and running in the next couple of months – with more news, views, and analysis from a range of guest contributors .

We’re now on Spotify too. You can also pick our podcasts there if you prefer.. If you do, please remember do give us a like and a follow to help spread the word.

On that point, a big thanks from Labour CND go to Bryn Griffiths, who coordinates Labour Left Podcast, for his support for our new venture. As Bryn put it, we’re the new kids on the podcast block. We’re hoping to get on board with more partner organisations who are podcasting in future.  

Posted on

Join CND at the Lakenheath Peace Camp

Desite government silence, news is spreading that US nuclear weapons are coming back to Britain. That’s why Lakenheath airbase in the quiet Suffolk countryside is going to be a hive of activity from 14-26 April.

Lakenheath Alliance for Peace has organised a Peace Camp there, and CND is working with LAP to make it a festival of activities – including an international conference, with guests from across Europe, a climate day, a war crimes & genocide day, a Greenham Common day, and more.

Check out the details and links below.

WHAT THEY SAY

Sophie Bolt CND Gen Sec
Nuclear weapons are the most destructive in the world. They put us all at risk every day. Far from keeping people safe, all these nuclear weapons make Britain a target. Yet the government is more concerned about its special relationship with the US than people’s safety.
The peace camp comes just as we learn that Britain’s cover-up of a US nuclear weapons deployment has been in the works for at least four years, alongside proof that people living close to any US base in this country  are at great risk. We encourage everyone to get involved with the peace camp.

Angie Zelter Lakenheath Alliance for Peace co-founder
It is horrifying and shameful that USAF Lakenheath, on British soil and with the connivance of the UK government is involved in war crimes and genocide. Pilots from Israel and Saudi Arabia are trained at Lakenheath and US planes and bombs go out to take part in the bombings in Gaza and Yemen. We are here to say this is not in our name.

Ginnie Herbet Greenham Common Woman
Women who protested at Greenham in the 1980s are now protesting at the return of US nukes to Lakenheath. Cruise missiles left Greenham Common, international law changed and the Common was handed back to the people. Forty years later and here we are protesting again as secret decisions are made and US nuclear weapons return to Lakenheath.

WHAT YOU CAN DO

Get the Peace Camp programme and find out more about LAP here

Check if a CND group in your area can offer transport to the Peace Camp here

Learn what more CND wants you to do to stop US nukes here

Watch London CND’s podcast with Angie Zelter here

Posted on

In conversation with defence economist Prof Ron Smith on military spending, jobs, and Trident

Labour CND recently launched into a new venture for us: podcasting. Our first was released the day after the Chancellor’s spring statement: a conversation with Ron Smith that produced some interesting responses.

We asked Ron if a bigger MoD budget would benefit the British economy, and if more military spending meant more jobs. His responses were revealing. But when we asked about Trident, the answer was franker than any you might expect from an economist:

‘Trident, I feel, is a complete waste of money
– and when I say that to military audiences
two thirds of them applaud’

Ron is Emeritus Professor of Applied Economics at Birkbeck, University of London, where he’s researched on the economics of arms trading and defence policy for many years and published a long list of articles and books. He’s advised the Treasury and been a consultant to the National Audit Office, so we reckon he knows a thing or two.

Our conversation with Ron is well worth a half-hour listen. If you do, and if you like what Labour CND’s doing – please give us a like, give us a follow, and come back for more.

Posted on

MODEL MOTION on US nuclear weapons returning to Lakenheath

As the successful blockade of Lakenheath airbase at the end of April demonstrated, word is getting round that the British government is permitting US nuclear weapons back into Britain, as the establishment last year of Lakenheath Alliance for Peace testifies. LAP now holds  regular vigils at the base, and has organised a successful two-week peace camp with more to follow.. But did you know that the British government has never acknowledged that US nuclear weapons will be returning to Britain’s shores?

MPs who asked questions in parliament when it first became known in 2022 were answered by James Heappey, a Defence Minister at the time, that the Ministry of Defence was ‘unable to comment on US spending decisions and capabilities, which are a matter for the US Government. It remains longstanding UK and NATO policy to neither confirm nor deny the presence of nuclear weapons at a given location.’

Parliament ever been allowed to debate, let alone vote on, the return of US nuclear weapons. This just isn’t good enough. Labour CND urges supporters to raise the issue in your local Labour Party.

This [Branch /CLP] notes

A.            There is evidence that the United States plans to station nuclear weapons at the US Airforce base in Lakenheath, Suffolk, 70 miles from London.

B.            There has been no consultation. The public was not asked about this, nor was parliament.

C.           The plans are unpopular with voters. 17 years ago in 2008, sustained protests by CND and local groups led to nuclear bombs being removed from Lakenheath. Despite the secrecy, there is growing publicity.

D.           There were near-misses last time US nuclear bombs were at Lakenheath. Yet investigations by CND’s legal team indicate that there are no emergency plans in place in the event of nuclear accidents involving these new US B61-12 bombs.

E.            CND is launching a legal challenge against both Suffolk County Council and the Secretary of State for Defence over the serious safety risks of siting US nuclear weapons at Lakenheath, arguing that if these nuclear bombs are at Lakenheath, the Council and the Ministry of Defence could be in breach of their statutory obligations under emergency radiation regulations.

This [Branch/CLP] believes

1.            The plans would make us a target in a nuclear war between the US and Russia, at a time when the risk of nuclear war is growing. These US B61-12 nuclear bombs are described as ‘battlefield’ nuclear weapons and are designed to be used in war.

2.            The government, without any public consultation or parliamentary debate, is making us a target and putting us at risk from nuclear accidents without any emergency plans in place.

This [Branch/CLP] resolves to

a) support CND’s campaign to stop the deployment of these bombs
b) inform members on the issues by circulating material on Lakenheath airbase and peace camp activities there, and
c) holding a discussion and invite a CND speaker.

Posted on

Military spending: a lesson from history

Above: surrender after the fall of Singapore, 1942

Labour CND Vice Chair, Christine Shawcroft reminds us not all examples of increasing military spending are positive.

When I was on holiday last year, there was a book on great military blunders lying around the rental. It was a very weighty tome, as you can imagine, but I flicked through it and then found myself reading the chapter on the fall of Singapore, then part of the British Empire, in the Second World War.

Singapore was considered safe on the landward side, because of the impenetrable jungle behind it. All the British defence experts and the powers-that-be were sure that the danger came from the sea. So certain were they that they knew what was needed to defend the city, the authorities spent a fortune on huge gun emplacements all around the coast, pointing out to sea. It was an enormous expense, but there are no limits when it comes to safety and security.

Singapore’s white elephant

In February 1942, 35,000 Japanese troops slashed their way through the dense jungle and, using the element of surprise, defeated the 85,000 strong garrison. The massive guns couldn’t be used: they were in the wrong place and pointing the wrong way. On 15th February, Lt General Arthur Percival signed the surrender.

Churchill said it was the ‘worst disaster and largest capitulation in British history.’ Yet it wasn’t for lack of defence spending.

Fast forward to 2025. Donald Trump doesn’t want to pay so much towards the defence of Europe, but he has no doubt that it needs defending. And apparently it needs defending from the Russians, who are said to be poised to invade their former vassal states in eastern Europe and once there will be well placed to move on the west.

Happily picking up the poisoned chalice, Keir Starmer is prepared to cut overseas development and slash public services to the bone, all to hugely increase military spending. He is pledged to increase the number of ‘our’ nuclear weapons – because being able to nuke every country in the world, some of them more than once, just isn’t enough to keep us safe these days.

As the saying goes, when you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Countering the wrong threat?

Starmer is repeating the mistakes of the rulers of Singapore, spending huge amounts of our money to counter the wrong threat. The Russian bear is NOT about to try and gobble up Europe. Meanwhile the Far Right are capitalizing on working class discontent with the cost of living, huge NHS waiting lists and the lack of affordable housing. Sneaking up behind us is catastrophic climate breakdown which will flood every coastal city in the world.

The money being wasted on countering the wrong enemy could be spent on safeguarding democracy, investing in an economy geared to socially useful goods and services, providing insulation and renewable energy.

Carrying on the way we are is leading to disaster. Like in Singapore, the guns are useless.

Posted on

PM’s Defence Spending announcement

It comes as no surprise that Keir Starmer has announced an increase in Britain’s military spending two days before he meets Donald Trump to discuss the President Ukraine peace deal. First as Labour leader and now as Prime Minister, Starmer has taken every opportunity to declare his allegiance to the United States, the Nato nuclear alliance, and Britain’s willingness to follow them into war.

Ahead of the Chancellor’s spring budget, and ahead of the Strategic Defence Review’s report, on 25 February, Starmer announced he would allocate:

  • 2.5% GDP on defence in 2027
  • extra funding for intelligence & security services, taking the increase to 2.6%, and
  • 3% in next parliament when economic conditions were right.

Starmer told the Commons:

‘Starting today this government will begin the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war. We will deliver our commitment to spend 2.5% of GDP on defence but we will bring it forward so that we reach that level in 2027 and we will maintain that for the rest of this parliament.

‘But let me spell it out my speaker. That means spending £13.4bn more on defence every year from 2027. But we also face enemies that are sophisticated in cyber attacks and even assassination so our intelligence and security services are an increasingly vital part of protecting both us and our allies. So on top of the funding of 2.5% that I’ve just announced going forward we will recognise the incredible contribution of our intelligence and security services to the defence of the nation which means taken together we will be spending 2.6% on our defence from 2027.

‘We must go further still. I have long argued that in the face of ongoing generational challenges all European allies must step up and do more for our own defence. So subject to economic and fiscal conditions and aligned our strategic and operational needs we will also set a clear ambition for defence spending to rise to 3% of GDP in the next parliament.’

Overseas aid budget raided

To pay for this, the Official Development Assistance (ODA) budget will be cut from the current 0.5% to 0.3% gross national income (GNI) in 2027. Disregarding Labour’s manifesto commitment to return to the UN target of 0.7% GNI, Starmer said the aid budget cut meant ‘fully funding the investment in defence’.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies was quick to point out that the figures don’t add up. An extra 0.2% of GDP provides around £6 billion. Yet the Prime Minister had ‘trumpeted a £13 billion increase in defence spending’. When this discrepancy was raised by Kemi Badenoch the following day in PM Questions, Starmer failed to provide a reasoned response.

International aid is intended to stimulate economic development and welfare in the poorest countries, many of which are ravaged by war. Starmer’s announcement means a cut of around 40%, on top of the cut introduced by the Johnson government in 2021.

Speaking at that time, Starmer said slicing aid to the world’s poorest was callous and not in Britain’s national interest. He accused Boris Johnson of ‘damaging Britain’s reputation around the world’. Those same accusations are coming back to haunt him this time round. This time Starmer not Johnson is in the dock.

Earlier this month, Foreign Secretary David Lammy had suggested Trump’s plans to cut the US aid budget could be a ‘big strategic mistake’. He referred to the UK’s experience of merging the Department for International Development into the Foreign Office as a blow to Britain’s ‘soft power’ internationally.

Aware the international aid budget was under threat, Sir Simon McDonald gave a similar warning of the damage to Britain’s global reputation that cutting international aid would do, a few days ahead of Starmer’s defence spending announcement. McDonald was Permanent Under Secretary at the Foreign Office 2015-20 and a former foreign policy advisor to the Blair government. NGOs have also pointed this out.

Labour in disarray

Starmer’s decision has also brought criticism from Labour MPs and former MPs, and resulted in the resignation of Analeise Dodds, Secretary of State for International Development.

Labour MP Sarah Champion, chair of the International Development Committee, described cutting the aid budget to fund defence spending as ‘a false economy that will only make the world less safe’ and called on the government to rethink. ‘The deep irony is that development money can prevent wars and is used to patch up the consequences of them, cutting this support is counterproductive,’ she said.

Former Secretary of State for International Development Clare Short went further. She described Starmer’s action as ‘disgraceful’, suggesting he ‘doesn’t understand that good development work is crucial to a sustainable future’. The increase in the military budget ‘splashes money on defence spending and Ukraine’, but it is ‘not focused on bringing peace to Ukraine’.

Short further warned the ‘traditional Labour Party’ faces destruction as core supporters abandon the party. ‘I am afraid that, in many respects, this is simply not a Labour government,’ she said.

Starmer’s attempt to get government ducks in a row ahead of his visit with Trump has left the government in disarray. It promises further problems in 2027, if – or should that be when? – other departmental budgets and projects get cut, as the IFS is suggesting is inevitable.

Criticism all round

Senior military figures and security specialists have also criticised cutting overseas aid, though not opposing military spending increases.

Former chief of the general staff, General Lord Richard Dannatt has described this as a ‘strategic mistake’ and warned that this ‘shortsighted’ move will ultimately add to burden on Britain’s armed forces. He says: ‘History shows targeted aid reduces the burden on the military. Labour is risking the very security we are trying to ensure.’

Labour CND says being part of an increasingly expensive Nato war machine, is not keeping Britain safe but making us a target. Will increasing defence spending prove to be the Labour government’s kingdom for a horse moment?

This blog was updated 1 March 2025

Posted on

Government watchdog says Trident submarine replacement is ‘unachievable’

The 2023-24 annual report of a government watchdog has awarded its lowest rating to one of the projects at the heart of the Trident submarine replacement programme. The current Vanguard class submarines are due to be replaced before they become unreliable and too expensive to last beyond 2030.

For the third year in succession, the Infrastructure and Projects Authority (IPA) has awarded a red rating to the £4 billion Core Production Capability Programme (CPCP) which is designed to provide safe nuclear reactor cores for the Royal Navy’s new Dreadnought-class submarines which are due to take over patrolling the world’s oceans with Britain’s nuclear weapons on board from 2030.

The CPCP’s job is to deliver safe nuclear reactor cores for Vanguard submarines, providing the UK with a modern, safe, and independent manufacturing capability now and in the long term. The IPA defines its red rating as indicating ‘the project appears to be unachievable’. Major issues do not seem ‘manageable or resolvable’ and a project’s viability should be reassessed.

The London-based watchdog reports to the Cabinet Office and Treasury on all sorts of major projects – from railways, schools, and hospitals, to defence, and information technology. IPA experts are mandated to track and monitor major government projects, to ensure they’re deliverable on time and within budget. Some nuclear projects are, however, kept secret from the public on the grounds of military and commercial security.

The Nation newspaper reports that Rolls-Royce, which is manufacturing Dreadnought reactors for the Ministry of Defence, has acknowledged the project is ‘challenging’. Rolls-Royce is a major player in the defence aerospace engine sector. A spokesperson said the company was ‘confident’ it could deliver on time. The MoD claimed the programme was ‘on track’.

The IPA’s 2023-24 annual report, published in January, also highlighted ‘significant issues’ with eight other major UK nuclear projects, the combined cost of which is over £55 billion. The amber rating awarded them indicates ‘management attention’ is needed. These projects include building new facilities at Faslane naval base which is home to Trident’s submarine fleet, the dismantling of nuclear submarines at Rosyth dockyards, and the construction of all future nuclear-powered Astute, Dreadnought and Aukus submarines.

A new programme which repackages former projects for making and storing nuclear materials at Aldermaston in Berkshire has also been rated amber for the past two years.

Scottish CND chair, Lynn Jamieson continues to highlight Trident’s dependence on the US military infrastructure and technology. ‘The nuclear weapons based on the west coast of Scotland, are arguably more US technology than British. The submarines, whilst built in Barrow-in-Furness in England, are assembled according to US blueprints and with US components. The Trident missiles fired by the submarines are built, supplied and maintained in the US.’

Both the Scottish National Party and the Green Party of Scotland have criticised Trident replacement. Patrick Harvie, co-leader of the Scottish Greens and Glasgow MSP has called for the money Westminster is pouring into nuclear weapons to be used instead to reverse the government’s austerity measures.