“A year into the Labour government I have come to the following conclusion… this government is a genocide-facilitating, nuclear proliferator, that has abandoned its political and economic sovereignty to the whims of the leader of a rogue state.”
Kate Hudson, Vice President of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND), reviews Starmer’s first year in office, with a look at the Government’s increasing militarism, adherence to Trump’s global agenda and support for Israel’s genocide in Gaza.
I’ve been scratching my head to think of a more shameful period in British foreign and ‘defence’ policy than this first year of Starmer’s Labour government. Quite frankly, I can’t think of one. Facilitating and supporting a genocide is as low as it gets. A year ago, I feared that Labour’s policies would be a continuity with those of the Tories, but in fact Labour’s position on so-called defence — actually war-fighting and militarism — has at times been more extreme than that of the Tories.
Labour’s policies have been explicitly pro-nuclear weapons, they have backed massively increased arms spending, been pro-war in Ukraine and Gaza, pro-NATO, and tied into the US ideological and military framework.
The government continues to support and facilitate the genocide by the Israeli forces in Gaza and the rest of occupied Palestine, and has condoned their attacks on Lebanon and Iran.
At every point, Keir Starmer has taken the most dangerous, provocative position. Within weeks of acceding to power, he had championed the use of NATO long-range missiles by Ukraine into Russia, thereby openly risking direct war between nuclear-armed NATO and Russia. His refusal to support a negotiated settlement has led to countless thousands more deaths.
One of the first acts of the new government was to launch a new strategic defence review process (SDR). The main purpose of the SDR was to justify and provide for an increase to 2.5% of GDP on military spending in the next couple of years, prior to a hike to 3% in the next parliament. It was also designed to provide a big boost to the British arms industry, to create the false impression that military production can generate economic growth. On publication last month, it duly delivered on both.
I can only imagine the scenes in 10 Downing Street, that led – just weeks later – to Starmer announcing that UK military spending would actually be increasing to 4.1% by 2027, and 5% by 2035. Of course this was driven by Trump’s demand at the recent NATO summit that NATO members should spend 5% of GDP on ‘defence’; it was accepted by all member states except valiant Spain which was told it would have to pay twice as much in tariffs, as punishment. What price national sovereignty?
Of course, Trump heralded the 5% increase as a ‘great victory’ and, most tellingly, said he hoped the money would be spent on buying US military hardware. That’s something the government couldn’t do quickly enough, swiftly putting in an order for 12 nuclear-capable F-35A fighter jets from US manufacturer Lockheed Martin, at a cost of $80-100 million each. These jets will be armed with US B61-12 nuclear bombs. They amount to illegal British nuclear proliferation and are to be thoroughly condemned.
The big question for Starmer is where the money will come from: presumably from social spending and the cost will be enormous.
The announcement of this came alongside the publication of Starmer’s National Security Strategy, with its emphasis on sovereign capability – making and controlling things ‘in house’ such as steel production and securing supply chains.
All this ties in with the government’s new industrial strategy, which includes £86 billion for research and development with the intention of driving growth in technologies for economic and military competitiveness.
Some people may like the sound of this, but this is something our movement has to be very clear about: ‘Military Keynesianism’, promoting military spending as an economic benefit, does not add up. We must use the work done for the Alternative Defence Review in the trade unions and wider society, to demonstrate the harms of the ‘defence dividend’ approach. Specifically we need to bust the ‘jobs myth’, and explain how military spending is a much lower economic and employment multiplier than other public investments. In other words, military spending generates less overall economic activity and jobs, and fewer secondary benefits, than spending on essential services or infrastructure and on job rich technology, particularly renewables.
We need to say no to the militarisation of our society, and recognise that real security is human security that comes from investment in communities, in welfare, in good jobs and decent housing and education, not on weapons of war and mass destruction.
So a year into the Labour government I have come to the following conclusion – sadly of course, because we all wanted something better after so many years of Tory rule: this government is a genocide-facilitating, nuclear proliferator, that has abandoned its political and economic sovereignty to the whims of the leader of a rogue state. It’s time to build something better than this.
- Labour Outlook is running a series of daily articles, reviewing one year of the Starmer Government across different key areas.
- Kate Hudson is the Vice-President of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND). You can follow Kate on Twitter/X; and follow the CND on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter/X.
- If you support Labour Outlook’s work amplifying the voices of left movements and struggles here and internationally, please consider becoming a supporter on Patreon.
