The Labour Party under Andy Burnham

[Yew]

To be honest I don't actually have strong opinions, but rather strong questions. I understand people will have paid into the state pension their whole lives but I do think it's worth asking if we really need a triple-lock? If it matches wage growth or inflation then does it really need to increase 2.5% just because that's highest metric every April? It's not something any political party wants to touch because pensions are a massive voting bloc.

The triple lock used to be a sensible policy, as the state pension was very low, however after years of above inflation rises in the 2010s have remidied that issue.

Same with the NHS; we're told it's broken and underfunded yet it's received increased spending year-on-year. If nothing else it's certainly reasonable to ask where the money goes and why it's still struggling, but many don't like the idea of potential NHS reforms because they fear it will give way to privatisation (to be fair not an unreasonable fair with a potential Reform government come 2029). It does get ripped off in a lot of areas as well to be fair.

Indeed, I support reforming the NHS, but I worry that any reforms will be along the lines of "how about we outsource things, maybe to this company that donates to my party". Sweeping, top-down reform is unlikely to work, what is needed is continual investment in improvements to service and cost. It's boring, but its exactly how Toyota went from a comparative nobody, to the manufacturer of some of the most reliable cars in the world, 2% improvement every year.

Custodians of the money of which group of ordinary people? An insane proportion of working age people don’t have any savings, can barely afford a house and are crushed by rent. Are we just to shrug and say “well, it is the result of rational allocations of capital in the past, so we must do nothing about it”? It should be in productive investments, not parasitical activities.

I imagine that the ordinary people probably want them to operate in a way that will maximise their overall prosperity. Maximising investment returns by engaging in economically destructive asset stripping might make an annual return look good, but may not represent an overall optimal solution.

It does feel to me like some more protections against asset stripping and offshoring could be worthwhile considering, as it feels like a lot of our current issues stem from them.

 

[RT4038]

The triple lock used to be a sensible policy, as the state pension was very low, however after years of above inflation rises in the 2010s have remidied that issue.

The problem usually being that those who did not save or save sufficiently for retirement find the State Pension too low to live a comfortable life, and those who did seeing it unfair that they should get less because of that, and thereby a proportion of those get a very good life in retirement (and lots of others in between).

I imagine that the ordinary people probably want them to operate in a way that will maximise their overall prosperity. Maximising investment returns by engaging in economically destructive asset stripping might make an annual return look good, but may not represent an overall optimal solution.

It does feel to me like some more protections against asset stripping and offshoring could be worthwhile considering, as it feels like a lot of our current issues stem from them.

I don't think ordinary people think too closely about it at all, and a proportion of those who do will have a range of views on what 'overall prosperity' means. Probably doesn't mean them talking a scalp for the good of others less prudent / hard working though.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

That depends on how the money is spent.

I have spent most of my life opposing high defence expenditure, but we are in a different world now where the UK is not equipped to fight a 21st century war. Look at what is happening in Ukraine and the Middle East, where mighty military powers are unable to quell much smaller forces relying heavily on innovative use of drones and artificial intelligence.

The UK is extremely vulnerable to sabotage of undersea power and internet cables, plus having a lot of its electricity generating capacity out at sea. The UK has to invest in the sort of defence capability that Ukraine and Iran have developed, instead of pretending that we are a smaller version of the USA or Russia. When the Defence Investment Plan is published is when we get to see whether we are going to get anything useful from the additional expenditure.

Exactly which is why we need to stop pretending we still to defend anywhere else in the world except the British Isles. That doesnt need expensive aircraft carriers for starters.

 

[Railwaycat]

Exactly which is why we need to stop pretending we still to defend anywhere else in the world except the British Isles. That doesnt need expensive aircraft carriers for starters.

You've hit the nail on the head with the two sitting ducks. They can't defend themselves (practically no on board weapons systems) so they need most of the rest of the fleet to defend them! If no one wants to buy them then scrap them. What we do desperately need is land based anti air systems in all forms, but especially long range and anti ballistic (and preferably not Patriot, although it clearly works), and a lot of them.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

You've hit the nail on the head with the two sitting ducks. They can't defend themselves (practically no on board weapons systems) so they need most of the rest of the fleet to defend them! If no one wants to buy them then scrap them. What we do desperately need is land based anti air systems in all forms, but especially long range and anti ballistic (and preferably not Patriot, although it clearly works), and a lot of them.

German Skyranger system would be a good start to protect against drones. Should get a few mounted on platforms in the Nth Sea to protect offshore assets

 

[david1212]

To be honest I don't actually have strong opinions, but rather strong questions. I understand people will have paid into the state pension their whole lives but I do think it's worth asking if we really need a triple-lock? If it matches wage growth or inflation then does it really need to increase 2.5% just because that's highest metric every April? It's not something any political party wants to touch because pensions are a massive voting bloc.

The triple lock used to be a sensible policy, as the state pension was very low, however after years of above inflation rises in the 2010s have remedied that issue.

Directly I agree the state pension should not increase in real terms. The annual increase should though match the inflation of typical expenditure it is expected to cover which may well exceed the inflation figure currently used. Examples of expenditure are Council Tax which year after year is increased above the headline inflation rate, currently directly and indirectly energy which will ripple through to food and essentials prices, if owned property maintenance cost or rent if renting ....

Long term most will have some additional pension from the NEST workplace pension scheme but of course part of the contributions are a direct deduction from wages while effectively all could be if the employer reduced or froze wage increases to cover their contributions.

Same with the NHS; we're told it's broken and underfunded yet it's received increased spending year-on-year. If nothing else it's certainly reasonable to ask where the money goes and why it's still struggling, but many don't like the idea of potential NHS reforms because they fear it will give way to privatisation (to be fair not an unreasonable fair with a potential Reform government come 2029).

Back 20+ years ago I was working for a small company that was a supplier to the NHS. If done efficiently the NHS could have saved significantly by cutting out the middle-man. Aside from the profit the NHS should have been able to get better pricing from suppliers. In reality, so I was told, policies prevented direct dealing with some suppliers particularly non-UK. Another factor for the NHS was being able to reduce risk / responsibility i.e. ' Pass-the-buck ' or worst case sue the supplier.

As time went on some support provided directly by the NHS was instead outsourced. Directly this reduced one budget as the appointed financial consultants were tasked to do but overall a cost increase.

Within the big picture directly negligible but apply across the field then the difference becomes significant.

It does get ripped off in a lot of areas as well to be fair.
.....

... but partly because of it's policies e.g. we require a fixed price for item x plus the maintenance and all the consumables, the latter to be delivered as required. The supplier prices this based on continuous usage. If in reality usage is only 12 out of 24 hours maintenance is less frequent and only 50% of the consumables are actually supplied.

 

[Merle Haggard]

/snip/

Back 20+ years ago I was working for a small company that was a supplier to the NHS. If done efficiently the NHS could have saved significantly by cutting out the middle-man. Aside from the profit the NHS should have been able to get better pricing from suppliers. In reality, so I was told, policies prevented direct dealing with some suppliers particularly non-UK. Another factor for the NHS was being able to reduce risk / responsibility i.e. ' Pass-the-buck ' or worst case sue the supplier.

As time went on some support provided directly by the NHS was instead outsourced. Directly this reduced one budget as the appointed financial consultants were tasked to do but overall a cost increase.

Within the big picture directly negligible but apply across the field then the difference becomes significant.


... but partly because of it's policies e.g. we require a fixed price for item x plus the maintenance and all the consumables, the latter to be delivered as required. The supplier prices this based on continuous usage. If in reality usage is only 12 out of 24 hours maintenance is less frequent and only 50% of the consumables are actually supplied.

Some time age, my GP's reception area had a poster that told patients not to expect prescriptions for medication that could be obtained from pharmacies more cheaply. It gave a list of about twenty examples, in every case the cost to the NHS was a multiple of the price pharmacies charge - in some cases 10 times the over-the-counter price. One example was the price paid by the NHS for paracetamol, which was £5 - although the quantity was not stated.
If the NHS know there's a much cheaper source of drugs than their suppliers charge why don't they use it?

 

[Yew]

They can't defend themselves (practically no on board weapons systems)

Apart from many of the most sophisticated combat aircraft in the world. The key is in the name, they're supposed to carry aircraft, which can fly far away and strike the opponent, without themselves getting into range of attacks.

What we do desperately need is land based anti air systems in all forms, but especially long range and anti ballistic (and preferably not Patriot, although it clearly works), and a lot of them.

We need anti-air systems, there is no reason to limit ourselves to land based ones, we are after all an island. It's important to remember that whilst there are lessons we can and should learn from Ukraine, we are not an Eastern European land power - the right solution for us is likely to differ from what works for Ukraine.

 

[m0ffy]

Some time age, my GP's reception area had a poster that told patients not to expect prescriptions for medication that could be obtained from pharmacies more cheaply. It gave a list of about twenty examples, in every case the cost to the NHS was a multiple of the price pharmacies charge - in some cases 10 times the over-the-counter price. One example was the price paid by the NHS for paracetamol, which was £5 - although the quantity was not stated.
If the NHS know there's a much cheaper source of drugs than their suppliers charge why don't they use it?

A significant part of that price is the cost of prescribing - admin, invoicing, service fees to pharmacies, etc.

 

[Railwaycat]

Apart from many of the most sophisticated combat aircraft in the world. The key is in the name, they're supposed to carry aircraft, which can fly far away and strike the opponent, without themselves getting into range of attacks.

We need anti-air systems, there is no reason to limit ourselves to land based ones, we are after all an island. It's important to remember that whilst there are lessons we can and should learn from Ukraine, we are not an Eastern European land power - the right solution for us is likely to differ from what works for Ukraine.

The F35B is not an anti submarine aircraft. It was not designed to shoot down ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, hypersonic cruise missiles and swarms of low cost drones - all of which can be fired from long range and submarines (apart from the drones) - it is also hampered by a lack of range (and I think, without looking it up, payload) because of the incorporation of lift engines to give it STOVL capability. I think there's regret (and debate about retrofitting) about no catapult to enable a naval Typhoon or the F35C to be deployed.

We don't limit ourselves to land based systems because the only long range anti air missiles we have are on our few destroyers and frigates, and they are limited by the number they can carry for a start, let alone the inability to be easily moved. We are not different to Ukraine - in the event of conflict we would face long range cruise and ballistic missiles, launched from submarines and long range strategic bombers, the only possible difference being we might not face swarms of low cost drones.

 

[AlterEgo]

Exactly which is why we need to stop pretending we still to defend anywhere else in the world except the British Isles. That doesnt need expensive aircraft carriers for starters.

What do you think would happen, really, if we shrank our navy to a maritime patrol force?

 

[Farang]

What do you think would happen, really, if we shrank our navy to a maritime patrol force?

We'll find out soon enough. No nuclear attack subs available for deployment, according to multiple sources.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

What do you think would happen, really, if we shrank our navy to a maritime patrol force?

Weve not got much more than that now but try to do too much with it and fail. Focus on protecting the British Isles and the critical assets we now have in the N.Sea. Israels iron dome has pretty well protected it against 100 if not 100's of Iranian ballistic missiles. Weve got nothing like it and rely upon the fact that we have nuclear weapons which the yanks basically have a kill switch for to be our deterrent. Ukraine and now Iran show that plenty of damage and chaos can be effected with relative cheap mass produced drones.

 

[AlterEgo]

Weve not got much more than that now but try to do too much with it and fail. Focus on protecting the British Isles and the critical assets we now have in the N.Sea. Israels iron dome has pretty well protected it against 100 if not 100's of Iranian ballistic missiles.

Why do you assume ballistic missiles are the principal threat? Our undersea assets and our role in maintaining free navigation are the two things most at risk for us.

Ukraine and now Iran show that plenty of damage and chaos can be effected with relative cheap mass produced drones.

How long do you think that will be the case for? If you're advocating a big drawdown of the navy you have to realise you can't just click your fingers and get it back.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Why do you assume ballistic missiles are the principal threat? Our undersea assets and our role in maintaining free navigation are the two things most at risk for us.


How long do you think that will be the case for? If you're advocating a big drawdown of the navy you have to realise you can't just click your fingers and get it back.

The Navy has been run down over the last 20yrs by all parties.

The plain fact is we are over extended and it would have been better for Starmer to first set out what the threats are what do we absolutely need to prioritise so the defense paper can then respond to that. John Healy is a pragmatist and would have risen to the challenge but all too often we are trying to punch above our weight now.

As aside Churchill clicked his fingers and the Navy got massively expanded but then we had an industry to deliver back then!

 

[AlterEgo]

The Navy has been run down over the last 20yrs by all parties.

The plain fact is we are over extended

...compared to our capability perhaps. That's an argument against drawdown.

and it would have been better for Starmer to first set out what the threats are what do we absolutely need to prioritise so the defense paper can then respond to that. John Healy is a pragmatist and would have risen to the challenge but all too often we are trying to punch above our weight now.

That's nonsense. Britain is the fifth largest economy in the world, and is an island. Where in fact should its navy be punching?

As aside Churchill clicked his fingers and the Navy got massively expanded but then we had an industry to deliver back then!

Another argument against drawdown.

 

[BAFRA77]

The Navy has been run down over the last 20yrs by all parties.

The plain fact is we are over extended and it would have been better for Starmer to first set out what the threats are what do we absolutely need to prioritise so the defense paper can then respond to that. John Healy is a pragmatist and would have risen to the challenge but all too often we are trying to punch above our weight now.

As aside Churchill clicked his fingers and the Navy got massively expanded but then we had an industry to deliver back then!

The claim that the Royal Navy has simply been “run down” over 20 years is an oversimplification. While fleet numbers have decreased since the Cold War, capability has significantly increased, with major investments in aircraft carriers, nuclear submarines, and advanced frigates.

It reflects a deliberate shift toward a smaller but far more technologically powerful force, rather than straightforward decline.

Similarly, the idea that the UK is “punching above its weight” overlooks its status as a major global player with NATO obligations, a nuclear deterrent, and extensive trade interests.

Strategic priorities and threat assessments already exist within government, even if not fully public, and modern defence planning is far more complex than in Churchill’s era.

Comparisons to rapid WWII expansion ignore the reality that today’s warships are vastly more sophisticated and cannot be produced at the same speed or scale outside a total war economy.

 

[JamesT]

The claim that the Royal Navy has simply been “run down” over 20 years is an oversimplification. While fleet numbers have decreased since the Cold War, capability has significantly increased, with major investments in aircraft carriers, nuclear submarines, and advanced frigates.

It reflects a deliberate shift toward a smaller but far more technologically powerful force, rather than straightforward decline.

Similarly, the idea that the UK is “punching above its weight” overlooks its status as a major global player with NATO obligations, a nuclear deterrent, and extensive trade interests.

Strategic priorities and threat assessments already exist within government, even if not fully public, and modern defence planning is far more complex than in Churchill’s era.

Comparisons to rapid WWII expansion ignore the reality that today’s warships are vastly more sophisticated and cannot be produced at the same speed or scale outside a total war economy.

An individual warship may have more capability, but that’s not much use if you then can’t afford enough of them to use that capability. The most recent example being the deployment of HMS Dragon to defend Cyprus. None of the six Type 45s were available immediately and it took a week to get ready to sail. The predecessor Type 42s may have been less advanced, but there were twice as many of them. There’s a variously attributed quote that “Quantity has a quality of its own”.

But Hormuz is an example of why we need more than just coastal defence. As others have noted we are an island nation dependent on world trade. Keeping the shipping lanes open is a key requirement. The UK military has been run down in that numbers of been cut and cut. We’ve largely got away with it as nothing has quite pushed at the limits. It will be interesting to see quite what we can contribute to the proposed coalition to keep the straits open.

 

[Tetchytyke]

It is really shocking how the custodians of the money of the ordinary people (pension funds, insurance, investments)

Ah that old chestnut.

Look at just about any big company and both the largest investors and the most influential investors are not pension or insurance funds. They’re family offices and they’re hedge funds.

What do you think would happen, really, if we shrank our navy to a maritime patrol force?

To the UK? Absolutely nothing.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Jun 2026 ==

But Hormuz is an example of why we need more than just coastal defence.

Hormuz is an example of what happens when the military-industrial complex starts swinging its penis around. Our brave allies started it and we got suckered into something that has precisely nothing to do with us. The Middle East hasn’t been our problem since 1971 when we, quite rightly, told the Emiratis to sort out their own defence. Which they have.

Hormuz was open and functioning properly until Operation Keep Bibi Out Of Prison swung into action.

 

[AlterEgo]

To the UK? Absolutely nothing.

Someone else will help guarantee global shipping then. I wonder who it will be. Someone reliable with our best interests at heart I hope.

The Middle East hasn’t been our problem since 1971 when we, quite rightly, told the Emiratis to sort out their own defence. Which they have.

Security of the UAE is basically guaranteed by the United States. They haven't "sorted out their own defence", they cannot deal with their major threat in Iran on their own.

 

[Tetchytyke]

They haven't "sorted out their own defence", they cannot deal with their major threat in Iran on their own.

Them and the Saudis seemed capable enough when they waded into Yemen.

Ironic that it is Israel that actually seems to be the major threat in the Middle East. Anything to keep Bibi out of prison.

Someone else will help guarantee global shipping then. I wonder who it will be. Someone reliable with our best interests at heart I hope.

Global shipping is guaranteed on a consensus basis. It always has been. The idea that the Navy has any sway whatsoever is laughable. It hasn’t since 1945.

But if we’re talking about piracy and blowing up civilian shipping, it’s our ally- the one with the special relationship- who’s doing all of that. The Navy are doing such a good job of preventing it that the Yanks blew up an Indian ship the other day and left the crew to drown. The Qataris had to go and fish them out of the sea. The Navy couldn’t even stop the Yanks from kidnapping civilian mariners from Scottish territorial waters.

As you can possibly imagine, I don’t have a great deal of time for all this militaristic willy-waving. Our military should be sufficient to stop us being invaded. Everything else is simply not our problem.

 

[JamesT]

Global shipping is guaranteed on a consensus basis. It always has been. The idea that the Navy has any sway whatsoever is laughable. It hasn’t since 1945.

But if we’re talking about piracy and blowing up civilian shipping, it’s our ally- the one with the special relationship- who’s doing all of that. The Navy are doing such a good job of preventing it that the Yanks blew up an Indian ship the other day and left the crew to drown. The Qataris had to go and fish them out of the sea. The Navy couldn’t even stop the Yanks from kidnapping civilian mariners from Scottish territorial waters.

As you can possibly imagine, I don’t have a great deal of time for all this militaristic willy-waving. Our military should be sufficient to stop us being invaded. Everything else is simply not our problem.

So the deployments to combat Somali pirates or the Houthis are completely pointless then?

 

[Yew]

Weve got nothing like it and rely upon the fact that we have nuclear weapons which the yanks basically have a kill switch for to be our deterrent.

Could you provide some evidence for that statement?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Jun 2026 ==

As you can possibly imagine, I don’t have a great deal of time for all this militaristic willy-waving. Our military should be sufficient to stop us being invaded. Everything else is simply not our problem.

Things may not be our problem, but they may cause a problem for us.

 

[Tetchytyke]

So the deployments to combat Somali pirates or the Houthis are completely pointless then?

The Houthis are the Saudis’ and the Emiratis’ problem, they’re the ones who decided to wade into Yemen and do some war criming.

The Royal Navy don’t do very much against the Somalis, its generally private contractors who protect the shipping there now.

Things may not be our problem, but they may cause a problem for us.

Indeed. But if the US Navy can’t reopen the Strait of Hormuz with all their weaponry then nobody can. Maybe they should have thought about it before they started chucking their weight around.

It’s almost as though diplomacy is much more effective than spending billions of pounds to drop lots of bombs on brown people.

Imagine if we actually negotiated properly with Iran. Hormuz would re-open in a week. But then Bibi would go to prison and that would make Starmer sad.

 

[edwin_m]

Indeed. But if the US Navy can’t reopen the Strait of Hormuz with all their weaponry then nobody can. Maybe they should have thought about it before they started chucking their weight around.

It’s almost as though diplomacy is much more effective than spending billions of pounds to drop lots of bombs on brown people.

Imagine if we actually negotiated properly with Iran. Hormuz would re-open in a week. But then Bibi would go to prison and that would make Starmer sad.

This is Trump's mess, due to being led into it by Netanyahu. I don't know who you mean by "we", the UK certainly doesn't (and shouldn't) have any role in negotiating with Iran.

UK and other countries have offered to clean up the mess, which is in everyone's interest to do as quickly as possible. But nobody, not even the world's most powerful navy, can do so while war continues.

 

[brad465]

John Healey has resigned as Defence Secretary over the spending plans, guessing he thinks they are insufficient.

Keir Starmer faces fresh blow after resignations by Al Carns and John Healey over defence spending

Armed Forces Minister Al Carns follows Defence Secretary John Healey in quitting the government over a dispute about military funding.

www.bbc.co.uk

Defence Secretary John Healey resigns
​

This is breaking news - we'll have more details in our next post.

 

[AlterEgo]

Global shipping is guaranteed on a consensus basis. It always has been.

I'm sorry, no, it really isn't. If it was, then Hormuz would be open and it wouldn't have been a continuous threat to be closed for the last 50 odd years. See also South China Sea, West Africa, Houthis, etc etc.

No, global shipping isn't open just because there are treaties. Treaties also have to be enforced and guaranteed. That is why navies matter.

But if we’re talking about piracy and blowing up civilian shipping, it’s our ally- the one with the special relationship- who’s doing all of that.

I assume they're doing that with the consensus and agreement of the Indian crew that got struck.

Imagine if we actually negotiated properly with Iran. Hormuz would re-open in a week.

Oh yes, imagine if we negotiated with them with no navy, army or air force capable of anything beyond "stopping an invasion" 3000 miles away on our small island.

As you can possibly imagine, I don’t have a great deal of time for all this militaristic willy-waving. Our military should be sufficient to stop us being invaded. Everything else is simply not our problem.

I just don't think it's a very serious opinion and really strikes me as "simple as" thinking. The idea that our military should be a home defence force is very simplistic and downplays the UK's standing in the world. We are a NATO power with responsibility for the collegiate defence of allies and power projection.

Your line of thinking seems to stem from an objection to our political regime's use of its military assets - and a dislike of arms companies - rather than whether a country in our geopolitical situation actually needs a military the size we have. A moral objection to how we project force is different to an argument about what military assets we should have.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Jun 2026 ==

John Healey has resigned as Defence Secretary over the spending plans, guessing he thinks they are insufficient.

Keir Starmer faces fresh blow after resignations by Al Carns and John Healey over defence spending

Armed Forces Minister Al Carns follows Defence Secretary John Healey in quitting the government over a dispute about military funding.

www.bbc.co.uk

His letter:

"This new era for defence required further investment through the Defence Investment Plan. The excellent and extensive cross-government work that completed in January-overseen by you, me and the Chancellor - confirmed the scale of the challenge and the rising demands on defence.

"Since then, you have been unable, and the Treasury has been unwilling, to commit the resources that the nation needs to defend the country at this time of rising threats.

"As I've outlined to you, there are credible ways of meeting the mid-term funding challenges, working multi-nationally and as other European nations are doing, to allow us to protect our ability to deliver the missions of our Labour Government.

"You know what defence needs. You made the argument for this powerfully in your speech at the Munich Security Conference back in February. Without a DIP (Defence Investment Plan) that meets the moment in this way, I am being forced to make decisions that would reduce the readiness of our Forces and increase the risk to personnel on operations, and could make the country less safe."

 

[Tetchytyke]

I'm sorry, no, it really isn't. If it was, then Hormuz would be open and it wouldn't have been a continuous threat to be closed for the last 50 odd years. See also South China Sea, West Africa, Houthis, etc etc.

Hormuz has stayed open for so long because it was in the best interests of all the nations surrounding it for it to be open. There was a consensus for it to be open, so it was open.

Trump and Netanyahu have changed that picture, it is now not in the best interests of Iran for the strait to be open. That consensus has gone, and so the straight is closed. All the military might in the world isn't going to change that picture any time soon, as the US Navy are so expertly illustrating. Billions and billions of dollars of rockets being fired by the biggest and best navy in the world yet Iran are keeping it closed with Shahed drones that cost less than the price of a Ford Transit to build.

Same with the South China Sea. There is a consensus with the countries surrounding it for it to be open, and so it is open. If China choose to close it then there will be absolutely nothing anyone can do about it.

I assume they're doing that with the consensus and agreement of the Indian crew that got struck.

There was a consensus and Indian ships weren't being blown up and Indian seafarers weren't being left to drown. Now there isn't a consensus and they are.

Oh yes, imagine if we negotiated with them with no navy, army or air force capable of anything beyond "stopping an invasion" 3000 miles away on our small island.

Our American friends have the best navy in the world and how far is it getting them?

I just don't think it's a very serious opinion and really strikes me as "simple as" thinking. The idea that our military should be a home defence force is very simplistic and downplays the UK's standing in the world. We are a NATO power with responsibility for the collegiate defence of allies and power projection.

Your line of thinking seems to stem from an objection to our political regime's use of its military assets - and a dislike of arms companies - rather than whether a country in our geopolitical situation actually needs a military the size we have. A moral objection to how we project force is different to an argument about what military assets we should have.

The UK has little standing in the world. The sun set on the British Empire a long long time ago. Whatever influence we had left was shredded with Brexit.

We're a small island off the coast of Europe with a small population and, quite frankly, who in the world really cares what we've got to say about anything these days? We can't even temper the US, who are our closest ally, you think Russia or China or the big players in the global south give a stuff what we have to say about anything? Look how China have essentially ignored the treaty we agreed with them over Hong Kong.

Projecting force my foot. We could quadruple the size of our military and quadruple our spending and it wouldn't change a single thing. A nation of sixty million people isn't a superpower and it is about time we accepted that. The days of Albion sailing the seven seas telling the locals what's what are long gone. Perhaps the UK wouldn't be in such a mess if its leaders finally accepted this and cut out the delusions of grandeur.

 

[RT4038]

They may be our ally, but we do not control them, nor have done so since 1776. Everybody knows that, and surely do not expect us to. I do not see how the rest of the world's view about us has changed because of this?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Jun 2026 ==

We can't even temper the US, who are our closest ally,

 

[AlterEgo]

The UK has little standing in the world.

As this is the fundamental underpinning of your thoughts, we differ and will not convince each other.

But anyway:

Hormuz has stayed open for so long because it was in the best interests of all the nations surrounding it for it to be open. There was a consensus for it to be open, so it was open.

No, the strait stayed open at least partially because the United States has deployed a vast amount of military hardware there - with the consent of countries like the UAE (who you say have "sorted their own defence" but in fact have got the Americans to do a lot of it). That's why the US has all those bases there that keep getting hit. It's entirely why the Iran War is such a stupid idea; the strait was open and relatively stable, which was in the interests of the United States, and the United States took actions which meant the Iranians took steps to close it. That is counter to US interests.

Trump and Netanyahu have changed that picture, it is now not in the best interests of Iran for the strait to be open. That consensus has gone, and so the straight is closed. All the military might in the world isn't going to change that picture any time soon, as the US Navy are so expertly illustrating. Billions and billions of dollars of rockets being fired by the biggest and best navy in the world yet Iran are keeping it closed with Shahed drones that cost less than the price of a Ford Transit to build.

Shahed drones which are, what, defending Iran's territory and merely "preventing invasion" do you think, or are they striking targets aggressively to project force and strategically influence the decisions of coalition allies?

Same with the South China Sea. There is a consensus with the countries surrounding it for it to be open, and so it is open. If China choose to close it then there will be absolutely nothing anyone can do about it.

So, would it be closed by simple "consensus" or would it be closed because China has a big and powerful navy and no other country in the region has one which can challenge it? Shipping isn't guaranteed by consensus - you seem to entirely dismiss the idea of bluewater navies, yet cite an example of a bluewater navy which would be rather useful for a country to simply make a choice in its own interests.

There was a consensus and Indian ships weren't being blown up and Indian seafarers weren't being left to drown. Now there isn't a consensus and they are.

No, there has not been consensus about the Strait of Hormuz. If that were the case, Iranians wouldn't have been preparing to close it for the longest time. It has frequently employed acts of sabotage and brinkmanship which I'm sure you will agree were not part of some consensus.

"It happens this way because it's good business" is a suspiciously intellectually convenient explanation. It does not seem to me to be the complete story and, if my assessment of your other political opinions is correct, you probably do not believe in the ability of the free market to simply correct and/or deliver good outcomes.

In the case of the Strait, the presence of significant military assets on both sides was a heavy finger on the scale in terms of keeping it open for so long.

Our American friends have the best navy in the world and how far is it getting them?

If Iran didn't have armed forces capable of attacking other countries, how do you think America would "negotiate with them"?

Projecting force my foot. We could quadruple the size of our military and quadruple our spending and it wouldn't change a single thing. A nation of sixty million people isn't a superpower

Nobody is suggesting we are. But we are more relevant than you give us credit for; we're one of the most important NATO members and one of the things we have that most NATO members don't is a bluewater navy.