Starmer: The Warfare State.
Sir Keir Says Britain Must Be Battle Ready.
Clement Attlee, in 1945, after winning the general election, introduced the welfare state. This safety net helped those out of work or looking for a job. People, though appreciative of Winston Churchill, whose rousing speeches got us through the war, wanted something different. Many demobbed soldiers and people in general liked the idea of a welfare state and a free NHS. So, they voted en masse for Attlee, whose government did bring in what they promised. And the NHS and welfare state still exist, though if Attlee could see it today, he might be horrified and dismayed at what it has become.
Sky News said, "Clement Attlee founded the welfare state" and his 2025 successor, Sir Keir Starmer, will found the "warfare state". So what's the truth about this? Sir Keir has committed to reaching 3% by upping Britain's defence spending. Is this a response to Trump? Possibly, as Trump demanded, NATO members, if they wanted America's help, should spend more on defence. It's also a realisation that Britain is woefully underprepared for war. As Sir Keir pointed out, Britain faces dangerous enemies. Namely, Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran.
Whether Sir Keir can deliver 3% on defence spending is another issue. With Sir Keir doing a U-turn on winter fuel payments for the elderly (apparently!), some say he will do the same with cuts to welfare. Cuts are made to save money and spend elsewhere in whatever capacity the government sees fit. I could ramble on about Tory cuts and how they have affected Britain before Labour came to power, but I won't. It's too long-winded, and it is not the subject matter of this article. So, to get the point, how can Sir Keir balance the books with his pronouncement to up British defence spending to 3%? Also, with his U-turn on winter fuel payment for OAPs and a possible U-turn on welfare cuts?
Sir Keir said he wanted no more "sticking plaster" politics; he said his government would have to make harsh decisions. In other words, do what has to be done, whether it pleases people or not. Asked by a journalist if Sir Keir could reasonably reach 3% on defence spending, he replied that it would be "subject to economic and financial conditions".
Sir Keir said he expected in this new war footing Britain for "everyone to do their part". This sounds very Churchillian and reminds one of the 1940s when the emphasis was on the King, the Nation, the Commonwealth and the Empire. Well, Britain doesn't have an empire now, we still have a commonwealth (which to me is a waste of time, but there you go!), but we do have a monarchy still (sorry Royalists, but I wonder why we still do?), and the UK often punches above its weight these days. However, is it right to address the nation in such archaic language from a bygone era? Some would argue yes, because the UK, as in the 1940s, faces alleged or real foes.
Technically, we are already at war with Russia. We have been advising Ukraine's military and training it ever since Russia invaded. We have along with other Western nations been sending weapons to aid Ukraine's war effort. So, yes, we are at war with Russia, but probably most people don't realise that or even want to think about it. And who can blame them when people in the UK are dealing with a spending crisis due to the cost of living? However, if Russia starts lobbing non-nuclear missiles at us and drones, and vice versa, then people will realise WWIII has begun. God forbid that day should ever dawn.
It's a shame that today we still have to resolve disputes by war. However, one could argue that as long as there are despots, one must be prepared, and that is what Sir Keir is outlining, sadly.
About the Creator
Nicholas Bishop
I am a freelance writer currently writing for Blasting News and HubPages. I mainly write about politics. But have and will cover all subjects when the need arises.
Keep reading
More stories from Nicholas Bishop and writers in The Swamp and other communities.
Dominic Cummings: "Tories Dead and Badenoch a Goner".
Many thought that when Boris Johnson hired Dominic Cummings as his adviser, it was a match made in heaven. Some saw it back to the Alistair Campbell days when Mr. Campbell was Tony Blair's adviser. Campbell was a Svengali figure in Blair's cabinet. Cummings was a Svengali figure and some said the power behind Johnson's throne. Cummings was brought- down by his journey to Durham during COVID and the ensuing lockdown. After Cummings was gone, the writing was on the wall for Johnson and his downfall.
By Nicholas Bishop8 months ago in The Swamp
Greenlanders Say “We Don’t Want to Be Americans” as Trump’s Threats Rekindle Arctic Tensions
When former U.S. President Donald Trump once again raised the idea of asserting American control over Greenland, the response from the Arctic island was swift, united, and unequivocal. Greenlanders, through their political leaders, made one message clear to the world: they do not want to be Americans. The renewed rhetoric from Trump has not only revived an old controversy but also exposed deeper questions about sovereignty, identity, and the rights of small nations in an era of aggressive geopolitics. Greenland, the world’s largest island, may be sparsely populated, but its strategic importance has grown dramatically in recent years. Melting ice due to climate change has opened new shipping routes and access to vast reserves of rare-earth minerals, oil, and gas. These developments have turned the Arctic into a focal point of global power competition, drawing interest from the United States, China, and Russia alike. Yet for Greenlanders themselves, the conversation is not about global dominance — it is about dignity, autonomy, and the right to decide their own future. A United Political Front in Greenland One of the most striking aspects of the current moment is the rare unity displayed by Greenland’s political leadership. All major parties in the Inatsisartut, Greenland’s parliament, issued a joint statement rejecting any suggestion that Greenland could or should become part of the United States. Their words were firm and symbolic: “We don’t want to be Americans. We don’t want to be Danish. We want to be Greenlanders.” This statement was more than a reaction to Trump’s remarks; it was a declaration of identity. Greenland has spent decades gradually moving away from colonial dependence on Denmark. Since gaining home rule in 1979 and expanded self-government in 2009, the island has taken control of most domestic affairs, while Denmark still manages defense and foreign policy. Many Greenlanders view eventual independence as a long-term goal, but one that must come through democratic choice — not external pressure. Public opinion strongly supports this stance. Surveys consistently show that the overwhelming majority of Greenland’s population opposes becoming part of the United States. The idea of being “bought” or absorbed by another country is widely seen as outdated, disrespectful, and incompatible with modern principles of self-determination. Trump’s Renewed Interest and Strategic Arguments Donald Trump’s fascination with Greenland is not new. During his presidency, he openly floated the idea of purchasing the island, reportedly seeing it as a strategic asset that could strengthen U.S. military positioning in the Arctic and counter rival powers. His latest comments, which hinted that America might take Greenland “one way or another,” reignited fears about coercive diplomacy. From Washington’s perspective, Greenland’s location makes it invaluable. The U.S. already maintains a military presence at Pituffik Space Base (formerly Thule Air Base), a key component of missile defense and space surveillance. Trump and his allies argue that greater U.S. control would enhance security, prevent Chinese investment, and limit Russian influence in the Arctic. However, Greenlandic leaders strongly dispute the notion that their island is vulnerable or incapable of managing foreign partnerships responsibly. They argue that security concerns should be addressed through cooperation with Denmark and NATO, not through threats or unilateral ambitions. To many in Greenland, Trump’s rhetoric feels less like a security strategy and more like a return to 19th-century power politics. Identity, Culture, and the Fear of Losing Control Beyond geopolitics, Greenlanders’ resistance is deeply rooted in cultural and social concerns. Greenland’s population, predominantly Inuit, has a distinct language, traditions, and worldview shaped by Arctic life. The island’s social model prioritizes community welfare, public healthcare, and local decision-making tailored to its harsh environment. Many fear that becoming part of the United States would fundamentally alter these systems. Questions arise about healthcare access, land rights, environmental protection, and the preservation of Indigenous culture. For a society that has already experienced the long-term impacts of colonial rule, the idea of exchanging one external authority for another is deeply unsettling. Local voices have repeatedly emphasized that Greenland is “not for sale.” This sentiment reflects a broader rejection of being treated as a commodity rather than a community. The frustration is not only with Trump personally but with the mindset that assumes powerful nations can redraw borders without the consent of the people who live there. Denmark, NATO, and International Concerns Denmark has firmly backed Greenland’s position, warning that any attempt to force a change in the island’s status would violate international law and strain alliances. Danish leaders have stressed that Greenland’s future can only be decided by Greenlanders themselves, in accordance with existing self-rule agreements. The controversy has also raised concerns within NATO. If a leading alliance member were to threaten the territorial integrity of another member’s realm, it could undermine trust and cooperation at a time when unity is already under pressure from global crises. Allies worry that such disputes weaken the moral authority of democratic nations that claim to uphold international norms. A Defining Moment for Greenland’s Future Ironically, Trump’s threats may have accelerated conversations within Greenland about full independence. While economic challenges remain — including reliance on Danish subsidies — the current situation has strengthened national consciousness and political solidarity. Many Greenlanders now see greater autonomy not just as an aspiration, but as a safeguard against external interference. This moment is a reminder that in the modern world, power should not override principle. Greenland’s leaders are not denying the island’s strategic importance; they are insisting that strategic value does not cancel human agency. Their message resonates far beyond the Arctic, echoing the struggles of small nations everywhere that find themselves caught between competing global powers. Conclusion: Sovereignty Is Not Negotiable As tensions simmer, one truth stands out: Greenlanders are determined to speak for themselves. They reject the idea of becoming Americans not out of hostility, but out of a profound commitment to self-identity and self-rule. In doing so, they challenge a world order that too often prioritizes strategy over sovereignty. Whether Greenland eventually becomes fully independent or continues its partnership with Denmark, its future will be shaped by the will of its people — not by threats, deals, or geopolitical ambition. And in asserting that right so clearly, Greenland has delivered a powerful message: in the 21st century, nations are not possessions, and people are not bargaining chips.
By Muhammad Hassan3 days ago in The Swamp
Comments
There are no comments for this story
Be the first to respond and start the conversation.