Yesterday was a mighty busy day. Video recording and editing were blown apart when Nicky Campbell asked me to be on Radio Five in the morning, which, as I have noted elsewhere, was well worthwhile doing.
Thomas and I then got to creating videos, including the one that is out this morning, which is a reaction to the discussion during that programme.
However, even since making that video, my thinking has developed a bit more, hence why I am asking the question that is the title of this piece, which is, 'Is this the moment when everything changes?”
What I should make clear is that the answer to the question as to who will benefit from increased defence spending in the UK is the wealthiest people in the country. We do not, after all, already do enough to defend the interests of everybody else, so we might pander to the rich by not taxing them enough. And it is, after all, the assets of, and income streams belonging to, the wealthy that any aggressor of the UK will be interested in. Therefore, it can only be the wealthy who must pay for an increase in defence spending.
More than that, though, it is the excess consumption of the wealthiest that must be sacrificed to provide the necessary personnel and physical resources required for that purpose. Nothing else is possible unless the people of this country are betrayed by those supposedly leading it who would otherwise choose to punish the vulnerable in the name of the defence of the wealthy.
I got the impression that Professor Tony King of Exeter University agreed with this analysis yesterday, but perhaps the most interesting comments made during Nicky Campbell's programme were made by a woman named Emma who made the point, often also made on this blog, which is that as things stand, nothing seems to work in this country. She is, of course, right. Neoliberalism has soured our well-being, and I had the opportunity to say so and to explain when and why that started in ways that I hope were understandable. I also referred to the single transferable party and the hegemony of ideas that they represent, which hegemony denies us the opportunity for the change that the country is crying out for.
Tony King and I concluded as a result that the current threat of aggression might precipitate that moment of change that we know to be necessary. It is now very obvious that what is happening in this country is unsustainable. The current political consensus quite literally cannot last because the means for it to do so do not exist. That is because neoliberalism, the structures of wealth that support it, and the companies that exploit it have no ideas left on how to manage the situation we are in.
Essential questions about the nature of our society, such as what we have government for and what, therefore, we are seeking to defend by incurring additional defence expenditure, will inevitably arise now and will have to be answered, but neoliberals will have no idea how to do so.
In that case, you cannot suggest that defence spending must take place in virtually unlimited fashion if that decision means that funds are not available to protect those who are vulnerable and who need protection within our society. That would not be acceptable to people in this country, I suggest.
Likewise, it will be noticed, most especially but not only by the young, that if such spending means that funds are not available to manage the even more significant challenge to our long-term well-being that climate change represents, then we are not defending anything at all, but would instead be giving in to failure.
The conflicts that will be apparent in these differences of approach will have to be addressed. That is most especially because any politician who cannot come up with appropriate answers will not succeed in future elections. I think it is as simple as that.
There is, of course, an implicit assumption in what I just wrote, which is that there will be future elections. Conflict does always threaten democracy. But it was in an era of conflict that democracy's most glorious moments, which happened in the 25 years after World War II, were nursed into existence. I sincerely hope we see no suspension of democracy, even if only of the somewhat unrepresentative form that we have, but what I also hope is that the discussion we deserve on just what it is that we are defending in terms of ideas, structures of society, people, culture, places, assets, income streams, and most of all, well-being. If we can't do that, what is the purpose of politics?
What troubles me is that I suspect that most of our politicians could not address those issues and do not realise that we need to do so. That thought is, in itself, deeply concerning.
We are going to be living in interesting times.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
If all the money spent on bombs and the military were spent on housing, healthcare, food and education…
What a Wonderful World it might be.
Richard,
Couldn’t agree more that neoliberalism has utterly failed and for the vast majority. I recall the documentary Inside Job (from around 2010) referring to the backdrop to the 2008 financial crash. What struck me at the time was the opening of the documentary referred to Iceland and what was, till then, a successful economy…until financialism and neoliberal policies took over with predictable and very negative results. Of course the greed and homage to the neoliberal god of profit (and making sure that those who benefitted continue to do so and that their self-interests must be protected) had far wider and devastating effects which we are all too aware of – except seemingly our politicians – and actually provide proof why MMT should be the basis of governmental economic policy, why there is a need for regulation, etc. All of which you have clearly described in previous posts. Unfortunately, it does appear that even democracy will be sacrificed to protect the neoliberal elite with increasingly right-wing views being promoted in their self interests.
I am also struck by the narrow-minded – arguably racist as well as neoliberal – view on immigration and how it seems to be portrayed as a way of protecting and benefitting the country. In today’s Guardian article “How Spain’s radically different approach to migration helped its economy soar” it seems to again point to the fundamental flaw in the political choices made by the UK government. It is clear we need to protect democracy and the right political choices to achieve this are to focus on poverty, homelessness, education, NHS, etc. All of which can be funded by government should they choose to do so. Sadly, there is no sign of this and thus, not only is our economic health threatened, but democracy itself is also threatened.
Thanks
Sadly I don’t think the vulnerable will be protected. Quite the opposite. There will be an acceleration of the constant “workshy, useless eaters” narrative that has pervaded the public and political messaging of the last 15+ years.
It will be the right wing wet dream to be able to say that benefits, pensions, welfare etc spending will just have to be cut in order to defend blighty. Our captured politicos in no way will look to defend the vulnerable if the choice is between that and their donors and future employers. And through their client media they’ll brainwash us – “wealth has to be protected so we can rebuild after”
On the “who are we defending?” question, the answer is “not for We”.
You may be right.
This is why we need to talk about it.
The Times main oped this morning was by William Hague, saying we must increase defence spending and this must be paid for by cutting sickness benefits, NHS, and pensions. Even if I could give a pointer, I wouldn’t; it’s disgusting, and so are most of the comments. Increasing defence spending seems to be, for many Tories and right-wingers, just another way of waging war on the poorer 50% of our citizens.
Agreed
Your mention of rationing in your earlier article got me musing that the neoliberal single transferrable party would never institute something so egalitarian as rationing. I think we have come to a similar conclusion – that neoliberalism could not have survived World War 2 – by different routes. My fear is that neoliberalism is so entrenched and because its proponents get so apoplectic over even slight moves to the left that it will take death and destruction on a similar – or even greater (i.e. climate change) – scale to shift it.
Listening to “your” segment on the Nicky Campbell show. Bravo, and thank you for speaking up.
Thanks
Like buses, tipping points seem to come together.
Climate change is at a tipping point.
Our relationship with the US is at a tipping point, and indeed the nature of the world order.
The British two party system. The Conservatives failed and have abandoned the party of MacMillan or Major. The Labour party have cut loose from their roots. Over 40% did not vote for the two parties last year.
And the viability of laizez-faire capitalism is in doubt. It has failed to deliver for the ordinary people.
I am told the Chinese character for crisis is made up of two ideograms-danger and opportunity.
We must be hopeful.
Nicky Campbell show . Richards contribution is from 1h37m30s
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m00282jv
“…who will benefit from increased defence spending in the UK is the wealthiest people in the country.”
As PSR points out eslewhere, who will benefit is the US arms industry. And for sure as eggs they ain’t gonna pay.
I’m also just wondering from whom we are supposed to be putting up a defence? It is in the interests of the politicians to spread alarm and despondency by suggesting that the red army is ready to sweep through Europe once they are able to turn their attention from Ukraine or that Xi is coming for us. (And BTW that’s pronounced “she” not “zi”, although having worked for a Mazda dealer I tend to use “ksi”, because that’s how we pronounded Xedos). As Winston Smith related, the percieved agressors change on a whim. One day it’s Eurasia, the next it’s Eastasia.
And from whom are we going to recruit the necessary canon fodder these days? I understand that the forces are well below strength because modern teenagers don’t want that as a career. (Nor did I for that matter, even though my father had a dsitinguished service in the Royal Artillery and my brother was in Suez in the navy. Fortunately I missed National Service by a year, much to my disgrace).
I listened to Nicky Campbell. Well done for pointing out that it’s more to do with avaiable resources than money.
Thanks, Nigel
What’s more, it seems ther US have similar problems with recruitment –
https://theconversation.com/what-does-the-us-public-think-about-sending-troops-to-foreign-wars-heres-what-the-evidence-shows-249419?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20February%2017%202025%20-%203263233325&utm_content=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20February%2017%202025%20-%203263233325+CID_bec73ef67331283bd0822cce0dcb8dc9&utm_source=campaign_monitor_uk&utm_term=What%20does%20the%20US%20public%20think%20about%20sending%20troops%20to%20foreign%20wars%20Heres%20what%20the%20evidence%20shows
“….around 80% of American teenagers are not interested in military service.”
Which is unsurprising…
Who will the ruling class choose to use as cannon fodder ? A key question. I would not be surprised if they offer a student or mortage debt jubilee in exchange for ‘voluntary’ military service. It would be a classic darwinian capitalist’s solution where only those youth whose parents were not already successfully wealthy enough to have covered their offspring’s debts would ever face deadly fire in the frontline of oncoming neo liberal created wars over diminishing global resources.
That is deeply, and wholly appropriately cynical of you.
It’s a good question posed by Richard.
What are we expecting – an epiphany of some sort? The great ‘revelation’ ?
All I see is the means by which to water down an aggregation of opinion and sentiment that would make change happen.
The internet is the new ‘wild west’ with so much snake oil sold as fact; deep seated human prejudices and resentments ruthlessly exploited to create the dis-aggregation of a vanguard for change; blame is continuously misallocated.
We’ll call this form of change management ‘change redaction’ – as in change will NOT be tolerated because the survival of the rich and compromised depends on the status quo being maintained.
I’m all for jumping out of the trench with my pitchfork, but I’m not doing so unless others are with me. Because it’s going to need a lot of us, for sure.
A sorry state of affairs if there ever was one.
We’ve got so used to being told that there is no money for the many (and even worshipping the rich few) that too many of us are not able to put two and two together and realise that something is seriously wrong as they stand that has nothing to do with immigrants, Europe etc.
Clive Lewis has an interesting perspective in the Gardian today. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/feb/18/britain-donald-trump-defence-foreign-policy
Agreed
He’s decided to stick his neck out, very obviously.
I’m looking forward to joining Dad’s Army, and I’m not being entirely flippant, oh ok perhaps I am. The younger economically inactive wouldn’t be up to mobilisation, so clearly the idea of recruiting the unemployed to provide the manpower needed to facilitate increased defence spending would be a non starter. This really just illustrates the point that if effective manpower is needed, it has to be taken away from doing something else worthwhile.