Labour claims to be defending Britain from new threats, but its warfare state is steeped in old thinking | David Edgerton

IIt is difficult for this government to take this government seriously or literally. In presenting it a lot Strategic defense review The call for a new national solution, as it is not only treated in parliament with contempt-issuing large political advertisements outside the House of Commons-the country has given exaggerated demands that are ridiculously for “defense profits”: the idea that increasing investment in the defense sector will enhance growth and create high-quality jobs. He failed to explain why money for weapons is a better incentive for the economy than, for example, financing the nurseries.

The government claims that the world has become so dangerous that there is a need to review the “root and branch” of the defense. It claims that the transformation and innovation are necessary. However, there is a very little innovative or transformative about the new approach. The program that it reached is a doubling of the old-when renewing the “Sovereign Nuclear Military Military Roofs” program (to be installed on very unprotected missiles), until it reaches the missiles 12 new nuclear power submarinesOn the Internet and drones, which were the discussion of defensive purchases for more than a decade. The United States, despite everything, is still the “first partner” for Britain, relations with it must be strengthened. This is not a great rupture with the past. As many have pointed out, there is a big gap between discourse and spending, which will only increase from 2.3 % to 2.5 % of GDP.

How do we explain this? The Labor Party has regained the opportunity to present itself as a reinforcing party, just as Tony Blair believed in joy that he was the first to make the War Party. Its unnoticed enthusiasm is reflected in Kerr Starmer’s childhood talk about “a nation ready for battle, lying down” or “warriors”. Even the Prime Minister claimed, “We will innovate and accelerate innovation at a period of wartime” and become “the fastest innovative in NATO.” This is the work that wants to become the Conservative Party of its imagination, to purify itself from the stigma of social democracy, to indulge in the national nostalgia, not the least of which in wartime.

There was a time when the Labor Party was proud to claim that it was the Welfare Party. Recently, the right to work was also insisted that it was the “State of War” party – Nai Bevan is proudly associated with NATO Erni Bevin (Bevin was an engineer in the North Atlantic coalition). There is a greater fact in this narration more than that many Democratic Democrats are interested in recognition: after the war, the government of the War has pushed the defense to about 10 % of GDP, under pressure from Americans. What is forgotten often is that those who know that these levels of urgent spending will not produce what has been promised and the British growth will be destroyed. Among them is the Minister of Labor and National Service, Nay Bevan, Harold Wilson, Chairman of the Trade Council, and John Freeman, a small minister in the Ministry of offer (i.e. from armaments). They resigned and fixed.

The UK enjoyed the existence of alleged peace profits from the mid -fifties, as defense expenses decreased for GDP and social welfare spending. The Labor Party appears to believe that military purchases will generate growth. Kohim Rogali, a researcher at Common Wealth, a gradual ThinkTank company, studied spending and defensive jobs, and it is noted that “this is not an industrial strategy or dangerous jobs.”.

However, Starmer claims that “defense profits” will result from an increase of 0.2 percentage points in GDP in spending and that there will be a national and regional renewal through weapons contracts. This feeds nostalgia for skilled (male) functions, but it is not a dangerous proposal. In any case, there is absolutely no reason to believe that the profits of the defense of the economy will be higher than green, housing, NHS or university profits – and Many to believe that it will be much lower. However, if the defense itself is very important as they say, there will be very good reasons for continuing to buy weapons abroad, which It will happen in practiceInstead of ping for national contentment. It may make sense to give defense profits to those who have a busy record and successful manufacturing, for example, German tank makers and rifles, and even Ukrainian drones.

There are some things to welcome it in government ads and review the strategic defense itself. There is a clear feeling that things went very wrong, and that it is no longer appropriate to think about the UK as the best armed services in Europe. Unusual non -honorable specialists lack. There is nothing “global moisturizing” here, and only a few of the world’s leading. The routine claim that the UK is once a powerful power in the world. There is recognition that general investment in factories is needed. “First NATO” is better than the imagination of the Conservative Party era to tilt the Indian Pacific Ocean.

But the main problem remains – there is no thinking about alternative foreign policies or defense policies; The government is still focusing on defense relations in the UK in the Middle East and East Asia. For every reasonable proposal, such as the need to build inventory weapons and improve the purchasing mechanism, there is a failure to think through the real place of the UK in the world, and to face defense and foreign policy failures in the past quarter.

Keir Starmer wants to mobilize the nation in a common issue, “and claims that” nothing works unless we all work together. ” But this requires a real and dangerous consensus on goals and consistency in principles. Supporting the regional integrity of Ukraine, fighting against the Russian invasion and legal legal violations is good. But many noted that the United Kingdom was steadfast in its logistical and political support for an ally, Israel, in the illegal occupation of lands that are subject to the crime of war from collective punishment on a terrible scale. There is an urgent need to review the root and the branch, but this can only happen if we have a political layer ready to admit that old formulas will not do. It is easy to talk about talking and innovation; Achieving this requires a real rupture with the assumptions of the past and the present.