We must raise taxes for defence – it’s only the price of a cappuccino
Ronald Reagan did it. So did Margaret Thatcher. Both are remembered for cutting taxes and boosting defence – but here’s what’s often lost in the slogans: they raised taxes, too. Not because they wanted to, but because circumstances demanded it.
When the stakes are high, strong leadership means making honest – and sometimes difficult – calls. Look around us. How safe do we really feel?
By every measure, across every domain, the world is becoming more dangerous, not less. Our adversaries are not just emboldened, they are beginning to align – testing our weaknesses, watching our responses. Meanwhile, the reliability of our traditional alliances is no longer guaranteed. The international order we’ve relied on since 1945 has never looked more fragile. If ever there was a moment to rebuild our military credibility and invest in our national security, this is it.
The British people are starting to see the echoes of 1938, and they want to avoid history repeating itself. There is an expectation that Britain must, once again, step forward to lead. But, let’s be honest, our hard and soft power is not what it was.
In all three military domains – sea, land, and air – we already lack the scale of platforms and personnel to meet even our current obligations. Air defence, drone technology, and our resilience against grey-zone warfare all require urgent investment. So, too, does our industrial base, to produce the munitions, stockpiles, and readiness this new threat environment demands.
But this cannot be achieved by squeezing other Whitehall budgets or borrowing more. Nor should it come at the expense of our soft power. Cutting the overseas aid budget would open up different threats, the kind that can haunt us for decades. Extremism, pandemics like Ebola, and the drivers of mass migration are not deterred with tanks, ships, or jets – they’re tackled with targeted aid that stabilises regions before crises escalate.
Time is against us. The vulnerabilities we face will be exploited unless we act now to upgrade our defence posture. Across Europe, countries are investing in defence. But here in the UK, we face an anomaly. It’s become almost taboo to talk about raising taxes, especially during election season. And yet, these are uncertain times.
So let me say what we all suspect we’ll eventually have to: we need to raise taxes – specifically, for our security. Let’s craft a clear, transparent strategy and present it to the British people. An increase in income tax across all bands could raise the funds to boost defence spending to 3 per cent of GDP and restore our soft power. All of it is funded by asking the average worker to pay just £1.70 more a day, the price of a cappuccino.
That’s the deal. No gimmicks. No cuts to essential services. No magic money trees. Just an honest, grown-up conversation. Levelling with the British people.
This isn’t warmongering. It’s responsibility. It’s deterrence. It’s ensuring our armed forces have the tools, training, and technology they need to defend the nation.
The penny is dropping. We’re entering a new age of insecurity. If we want to stay safe, defend our values, and lead internationally – as we have in the past – we must act now. The price? £1.70 a day today. The alternative? Dither, delay – and pay far more later, scrambling to catch up in the fog of war.
It’s tempting to ask, “What would Churchill do?” Let’s not blink. Let’s lead.
Badenoch claims Adolescence ‘changed’ story it is based on – despite not watching it
Kemi Badenoch has said Adolescence is based on a true story that has been “fundamentally changed”, and that while it touches on an issue in society, Islamic terrorism is a bigger problem.
Co-creator Jack Thorne recently dismissed an online theory that the series changed the race of the lead character from a real-life case it was supposedly based on.
The drama about a teenage boy who is accused of killing a girl from his school examines so-called incel (involuntary celibate) culture and has prompted a national conversation about online safety.
Sir Keir Starmer hosted a roundtable at Downing Street with Thorne and children’s charities on Monday to talk about young boys being influenced by misogyny they encounter online.
Tory leader Mrs Badenoch said she had not watched the series.
“I don’t have time to watch anything to be honest, but I have read about it … what I understand is that this is a fictional representation of a story that is actually quite different,” she told LBC.
“And I think it’s an interesting story. It certainly touches on some of the things that are happening in the world today, but it is not the biggest thing that is happening in the world today in terms of what is happening to people being radicalised on social media.”
She said she was aware of what the series is about.
“I know what it’s about, and I’ve given a view that it is a work of fiction that is interesting, that touches on a problem in society, but there are bigger problems, such as Islamic terrorism and that kind of radicalisation, and the story which it is based on has been fundamentally changed, and so creating policy on a work of fiction rather than on reality is the real issue.”
She pointed to the Conservatives’ policy to ban mobile phones in schools, which some have said is unnecessary as many schools already do not allow children to use mobiles.
A post on social media amplified by Elon Musk has suggested the story, which features a white actor, is based on the Southport attacker.
Co-creator Thorne recently rejected the accusations of “race-swapping” in the series.
It is not based on a true story and is “making a point about masculinity” and not race, Thorne told the News Agents podcast.
“It’s absurd to say that [knife crime] is only committed by black boys. It’s absurd. It’s not true. And history shows a lot of cases of kids from all races committing these crimes,” he added.
What does Marine Le Pen’s conviction mean for France and Europe?
Marine Le Pen, de facto leader of French far-right party Rassemblement National (RN), is banned from contesting any public election for five years after being found guilty of embezzlement.
She says she will appeal but this will take time and possibly puts her planned bid for the French presidency in 2027 out of reach.
Her unexpected conviction has been met with a fierce backlash from allies across the world, notably including President Donald Trump and Giorgia Meloni, prime minister of Italy. Viktor Orban, prime minister of Hungary declared on social media “Je Suis Marine!”.
France, already unstable after the snap parliamentary elections last summer, now has the prospect of public protests in support of Le Pen.
What did Marine Le Pen do wrong?
A glib answer would be that she got caught. She was arraigned on charges of embezzling funds from the European parliament, of which she was a long-term member, for more than a decade. She did not personally benefit from any such activity, but it was found that she had diverted monies intended to be used for her work as an MEP into her cash-strapped political party. This was against the rules and a criminal act, but experts on the ways of the European parliament attest it is a not uncommon practice across the political spectrum.
Her supporters say she is the victim of a conspiracy by the French state to prevent her bid for power in 2027. Her critics argue that, whatever other people were up to, she is not above the law.
Certainly not immediately. The injunction against her standing for election doesn’t affect her status as a member of the French parliament, and the four-year nominal jail sentence would only begin after she has exhausted all the possible legal avenues to lift the ban or reverse the verdict.
Even if she is unsuccessful, she wouldn’t be incarcerated: she would serve two years under surveillance wearing an ankle bracelet, and then a two-year suspended sentence provided she stays out of trouble. She is also liable now for a €100,000 fine.
Hard to say, but it could take so long, and be such a distraction, that it effectively takes her out of the running for the Elysee Palace.
Yes. It comes after Romanian courts cancelled a dubious election marred by Russian interference and as the former president of Brazil, Jair Bolsonaro, faces trial for conspiring to overthrow his freely-elected successor.
Only Trump has bucked the trend, making a remarkable comeback after his 6 January 2021 insurrection and now the beneficiary of a Supreme Court decision granting him wide immunity from prosecution in the pursuit of his official duties.
It is huge. Le Pen was the favourite to win the 2027 contest, and already holds an effective veto in the French parliament, and, thus, on President Emmanuel Macron’s domestic agenda. She has made him a lame duck at home, and she had high hopes of succeeding him.
As the European Union’s second largest economy after Germany, now exercising its traditional role as political driving force in Brussels, France matters.
Le Pen probably would not now try to lead France out of the EU – that would likely mean a referendum – but she and her numerous far-right allies across the continent and in the European parliament, could steer it in a radically different direction. The populist/nationalist/far-right hold power or exercise influence in most EU member states, notably Italy, the Netherlands, Hungary, Slovakia and Finland – with the AfD in Germany now the official opposition. It would not take much to turn the EU into some sort of Trumpian power.
With Le Pen out of the running for the French presidency, it is much less likely Europe will fall into the hands of extremists.
Yes, and she could easily run the government from the back seat if another RN politician won. The problem for the RN is that her long political career and her profile mean that she’s much the best – possibly the only – credible candidate they offer. The nominal leader of the RN, Jordan Bardella, is a 29-year old protégé of Le Pen and close to the family; but he lacks experience and few have much confidence in him as a candidate for the next president of the republic.
On the other hand the right-wing backlash from the Le Pen judgment might actually galvanise her movement and propel it to success. Certainly the RN will remain a significant parliamentary bloc, which spells a prolonged period of “immobilisme” if the presidency is held by some more centrist figure – remembering that Macron cannot again.
Provided Le Pen remains barred, in a stronger position. Le Pen and her various political vehicles have long been sympathetic to Vladimir Putin and would be unwilling to commit French forces in the east. As for Brexit, Le Pen would be unwilling to grant any special treatment to the UK, in trade or in defence.
As austerity bites, Starmer must give the public something to hope for
There can hardly be a household or business in Britain that will not be faced with higher bills imminently.
The list of added costs is a long and demoralising one, especially because it mostly comprises items that are simply unavoidable: council tax; energy tariffs; water charges; broadband and phone subscriptions; the television licence; the road fund licence; stamp duty up – and, most important of all – the 2 per cent hike in employers’ national insurance contributions and the continuing freeze on personal income tax thresholds.
Inflation, according to the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), will probably peak at 4.1 per cent in July – and remain above the official target of 2 per cent until 2026.
Of course, there are two sides to every set of accounts. For some families, there will be compensatory increases in income. Thanks to the “triple lock”, the state pension is up by 4.1 per cent. Around 170,000 younger people will see a rise in the minimum wage, bringing it to 60 per cent of median wage – and, because of persistent labour shortages, a two-earner household will see its income from employment up by 5.8 per cent, safely ahead of general price rises. It is the equivalent of about £3,500, even after the freeze in tax thresholds is taken into account.
Overall, on paper, the balance doesn’t look too bad. Sir Keir Starmer has been making the most of the prospective increase in real incomes for many families. However, those increases in wages also represent an increase in costs to business, as do the “jobs tax” employer NICs – and, to a lesser extent, the extra responsibilities entailed in the Employment Rights Bill, which will also become law later this year. The uncomfortable fact is that improvements in productivity are not keeping up with wages and are thus unsustainable in the longer term. Unemployment is already forecast by the OBR to edge up, even with almost a million 18- to 24-year-olds not in education, employment or training.
For most people and businesses, life still feels like a struggle and there is no sense of any light at the end of the fiscal tunnel. Living standards have stagnated for many years and the chancellor’s efforts to repair the public finances have met with only mixed success. The promise of growth has not yet materialised. Brexit – and the huge public debt run up during the Covid pandemic – continue to drag the economy down. Now, the prospect of a global trade war will further dampen hopes of anything like a strong recovery – as an unusually open economy, the UK has more to lose than most from disruption in world trade and investment flows.
The prime minister and his chancellor, in particular, need to give the public a sense of better times to come and that the hardships of recent years – unprecedented since the end of the Second World War – are being shouldered as part of some wider cause.
There are things to be optimistic about and the government could – and should – highlight them, as well as continuing to make the case for placing the public finances in a secure foundation in a troubled world (and one that demands better defences). The planning reforms and investment in infrastructure will, in due course, provide a substantial improvement in economic performance, lifting the trend rate of growth by as much as 0.5 per cent by the early 2030s.
On a similar timescale, artificial intelligence and other new technologies will also have a transformational effect, just as the arrival of the internet did in the earlier part of this century. Despite some very valid warnings about skills shortages, more than a million new homes will probably be finished by the time of the next election: a record rate.
The NHS seems to be slowly healing. Relations with Europe, if only because of Donald Trump’s betrayal of the West, have improved immeasurably, and may yet lead to a closer economic partnership, driven by necessity as well as the palpable failures of Brexit.
The D:Ream hit “Things Can Only Get Better” was Labour’s brightly optimistic theme tune for its successful 1997 election campaign. It is fair to say that things haven’t quite lived up to those heady expectations, but the jib of a national leader is to keep the faith and confidence of a people in difficult moments with the promise – a credible promise – of better, happier, easier times ahead.
While the chancellor – not the most effective of political communicators – gets on with the hard slog of fixing the public finances, a little prime ministerial optimism would not go amiss.