Eamon Dyas
With Starmer reluctant to use home grown state funds to stimulate the economy he’s relying on blood money from the Ukrainian conflict as an alternative source. At what point does that policy – ostensibly designed to encourage Kiev to keep going – mean that the government’s domestic policy for growth has come to rely on the perpetuation of that conflict.?
From the government’s own website:
“This year the UK will give more military support to Ukraine than ever before, with £3 billion already committed for lethal aid, and the first £1.5 billion from a £2.26 billion loan as part of the G7 Extraordinary Revenue Acceleration scheme set to be released for major procurement projects. The loan will be repaid using the extraordinary profits on immobilised Russian sovereign assets. . .
With firms across the UK ramping up production to meet Ukraine’s requirements, the funding for Ukraine will directly support the UK deference industry, creating UK jobs, and delivering on this government’s growth agenda and Plan for Change. That includes BAE Systems and Sheffield Forgemasters, who, for the first time in almost two decades, will produce artillery barrels for artillery guns.”
I wonder what the balance for UK wealth is, between increased energy prices driving up the price of all goods and reducing the standard of living on the one hand, and increased military spending on the other hand. The balance must still be negative.
And how much of the savings from the winter fuel allowance has contributed to the ability of Starmer to be generous to Ukraine?
The savings will go substantially towards paying Ukraine 3bn:
The government expects to save £1.3 billion in 2024–25 and around £1.5 billion in subsequent years from the cut to the winter fuel allowance.
Labour Affairs 