“Do we really want the capacity to destroy millions of lives instead? And think what else we could do if conventional budgets were brought down to size.”
By Kate Hudson
As TUC Conference debates loom, respect is due once again to Jo Grady and the UCU for their tough and inspiring stance against military spending. Their compelling position at last year’s conference won majority support for prioritising the real needs of our workforce and our communities. It exposed the government lie that cash down the black hole of arms spending and war is good for jobs and the economy. And it made abundantly clear that peace does not come from the barrel of a gun.
Now they’re back with another motion that deserves everyone’s support, building on last year’s gains. Their Building Real Security motion, supported by Unison, NEU and others, is the next stage of the ongoing Wages Not Weapons campaign. As Jo Grady herself sums it up, ‘We can fight for a different set of priorities: wages not weapons, social investment and international solidarity rather than division.’
Identifying the nature of ‘real security’ is key to winning the argument across our entire movement, as well as wider society. For too long governments have hijacked the word ‘security’ to mean the ability to kill on a mass scale, whether in conventional or nuclear terms, backed by policy which is increasingly putting war first. Government ‘defence’ reviews have gone large on ‘war readiness’, amplifying and exacerbating threats, instilling fear amongst the population, to ensure an acquiescent population for both military production and military action.
This motion makes it clear that this approach does not make us more secure; on the contrary, it will make war and destruction nigh on inevitable. So what are we arguing for instead?
‘Real security is built through decent work, strong public services, social protection, democratic institutions, environmental sustainability and international cooperation.’ It couldn’t be clearer. The motion also highlights ‘lasting security’, which can be advanced through social justice, diplomacy, peacebuilding, human rights and respect for international law. Absolutely. Neither people nor planet can survive these endless wars: we need lasting peace and a government with the vision to fight for just solutions that will endure. Of course, that’s where we come in: to put the pressure on this government to tread a different road that will not be drenched in blood.
Rights and freedoms are often the victims of war, and the build-up to war, so I am delighted to see that the motion specifically recognises the need to defend the right to conscientious objection and oppose the introduction of compulsory military service in the UK. It is essential for us to raise awareness of what this would mean for our young people: does anyone really think that sending them off to the meat-grinder of war is the answer to complex problems? That it would make our world better and safer? There are alternatives, and we need to be taking them up.
When it comes to the facts and figures of what military spending means for us on a daily basis, I would point you towards new material from the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. The massive military spending increases are also being poured into weapons of mass destruction, and these updated figures are very useful to understand the scale of the problem. Spending on the replacement of the Trident nuclear weapons system has increased from around £205 billion to upwards of £240 billion. Let’s be clear – those are cautious estimates, based on available government figures. What could that amount buy instead? There are plenty of options, and I’m sure we could all come up with our own priorities, but here are a few from CND’s new People not Nukes report:
- £240 billion could fund free school meals for every child in Britain for 46 years.
- It could boost the number of nurses in the NHS by 220,000.
- It could fund the construction of 140,000 affordable homes for thirty years
- It could lift the debt burden on students by paying the cost of tuition fees for eight million students.
- It could fund the retrofitting of all homes in Britain within 11 years, significantly reducing carbon emissions and energy bills – helping Britain reach its Net Zero target.
Do we really want the capacity to destroy millions of lives instead? And think what else we could do if conventional budgets were brought down to size.
When you’re in the conference chamber this week, please back this motion. It stands for life and hope, not death and destruction. It doesn’t mean the end of skilled jobs and livelihoods; it means more and new skilled jobs. It means a future for our people and our planet. Please, support motion 75.
- You can follow Kate Hudson 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 donate here or become a supporter on Patreon.
