Rishi Sunak’s defence pledge sets trap for Sir Keir Starmer
On the plane from Warsaw to Berlin, Rishi Sunak was buoyant as he briefly chatted to the travelling pack.
Having delivered his hat-trick of welfare reforms, the Rwanda bill and now the big lift in defence spending, he was a prime minister who clearly feels on the front foot after a torrid few months.
He looked like a man enjoying the job.
Politics live: Sunak warns Europe is at a ‘turning point’
Allies said Mr Sunak has spoken a lot about the spending decision with his current Foreign Secretary Lord David Cameron, who has “form” in prioritising these decisions, having committed to defence funding back in 2010 when he was prime minister in the face of competing spending demands.
“The PM’s thought about this a lot, which is why it’s so detailed today,” said one government source.
The big decision he announced in this election year to increase defence spending to 2.5% by 2030 was a choice.
He could have committed funding to schools, the NHS or local government. But, for this prime minister, it was the right choice.
Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News
It might not be the most salient issue for voters at home, but in his speech today, he left his audience in little doubt about the risks we are facing with the rise of authoritarian regimes, such as China, Russia and Iran, working together to undermine our democracies and way of life.
But equally, Mr Sunak made this commitment knowing all too well that it may not be him that has to deliver it.
And while the sum is really big – £75bn of spending over the next six years – for this year the only commitment will be £500m for Ukraine, with the remainder of the funding coming in the next parliament.
Read more:
Sunak: World more volatile and dangerous than at any time since Cold War
On the assumed baseline, the government had already allocated the additional funding for 2.3% defence spending annually in the next parliament.
Increasing that to 2.5% by 2028-29 will, in cash terms, require £4.5bn of funding, which the government says will be paid for through £1.6bn from the annual research and development budget and £2.9bn from 70,000 cuts to civil servant jobs, taking the workforce back to pre-pandemic levels.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
PM: ‘We cannot be complacent’
It is a clear political trap for Sir Keir Starmer, who spent much of his early years as Labour leader trying to undo the damage done by his predecessor, Jeremy Corbyn – who did not support NATO.
Starmer trap
Sir Keir has sought to re-establish Labour’s security credentials in recent years, most notably in his stance on the Israel-Hamas conflict, in which he has made sure he sticks to the US position and stands with the government on matters of national security.
So this is a big test.
Sir Keir said recently that he wanted to commit to the 2.5% of “when resources allow”, giving a future Labour government some wriggle room as it contemplates how to allocate scarce public resource.
Because, as the polls stand, Mr Sunak won’t be the prime minister having to deliver on defence-spending pledges, and already Conservative politicians are challenging Labour to commit to their plans, knowing all too well that it reduces the party’s manoeuvrability in government should it win the general election.
Hard call
And this is a hard call for the Labour leader, who has been desperate to present himself as a politician who also puts the security of the nation above all else.
In Poland, Mr Sunak evoked Winston Churchill, saying: “We did not choose this moment, but it is for us to meet it.”
He also said that to lead was to make choices, and his choice was to protect his citizens above all else.
How can Starmer refuse to meet the commitment?
The US Securities and Exchange Commission’s Crypto Task Force has scheduled a roundtable discussion centered on privacy and financial surveillance for December, as a renewed focus on privacy grips the cryptocurrency industry.
The privacy roundtable is slated for Dec. 15. Like other SEC roundtables, crypto industry executives and SEC officials will discuss common pain points and solutions, but no hard policy proposals will be submitted.
Privacy has become a hot-button topic following several developments, including the partial guilty verdict in Tornado Cash developer Roman Storm’s trial in June, the Samourai Wallet developer sentencing in November and the privacy token price rally over the last two months.
“Authoritarians thrive when people have no privacy. When those in charge start being hostile to privacy protections, it is a major red flag,” said Naomi Brockwell, founder of the Ludlow Institute, an organization advocating for liberty through technology.
The renewed interest in privacy hearkens back to crypto’s cypherpunk roots, and one of the core reasons the cryptographic technology that underpins crypto was invented — to ensure secure communication channels between parties in hostile environments.
Related: Crypto investors flee visibility for anonymity as privacy coins surge 80%
Crypto community sounds the alarm about privacy following precedent-setting legal cases
The verdict in the Storm trial and other cases where open-source software developers have been convicted or imprisoned for creating non-custodial, privacy-preserving protocols has set a dangerous precedent for privacy technology in the US, legal experts have said.
Crypto industry executives and advocates argue that the prosecutions are meant to dissuade developers from building privacy-preserving tools.
The verdict in the Samourai Wallet case is analogous to the US government accusing car manufacturer Toyota of a conspiracy because terrorists and criminals also use their cars, according to journalist and crypto advocate Lola Leetz.
“People should not be held accountable for what other people do with the tools they build,” Leetz said.
In August, Matthew Galeotti, the acting assistant attorney general for the Department of Justice’s criminal division, signaled the agency would no longer prosecute open-source software developers for writing code.
“Our view is that merely writing code, without ill intent, is not a crime,” Galeotti said. “The department will not use indictments as a law-making tool. The department should not leave innovators guessing as to what could lead to criminal prosecution.”
Magazine: 2026 is the year of pragmatic privacy in crypto: Canton, Zcash, and more
Politics
All four UK governments ‘failed to appreciate’ scale of COVID pandemic threat – inquiry finds
All four UK governments failed to appreciate the scale of the threat posed by COVID-19 or the urgency of the response the pandemic required, a damning report published on Thursday has claimed.
Baroness Heather Hallett, the chair of the inquiry, described the response to the pandemic as “too little, too late”.
Tens of thousands of lives could have been saved during the first wave of COVID-19 had a mandatory lockdown been introduced a week earlier, the inquiry also found.
Noting how a “lack of urgency” made a mandatory lockdown “inevitable”, the report references modelling data to claim there could have been 23,000 fewer deaths during the first wave in England had it been introduced a week earlier.
The UK government first introduced advisory restrictions on 16 March 2020, including self-isolation, household quarantine and social distancing.
Had these measures been introduced sooner, the report states, the mandatory lockdown which followed from 23 March might not have been necessary at all.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
All four UK govts ‘failed to appreciate’ scale of pandemic
COVID-19 first emerged in the Chinese city of Wuhan at the end of 2019, and as it developed into a worldwide pandemic, the UK went in and out of unprecedented lockdown measures for two years starting from March 2020.
Lady Hallett admitted in her summary that politicians in the government and devolved administrations were forced to make decisions where “there was often no right answer or good outcome”.
“Nonetheless,” she said, “I can summarise my findings of the response as ‘too little, too late'”.
‘Toxic culture’ at the heart of UK government
The report said there was “a toxic and chaotic culture” at the heart of the UK government during the pandemic.
The inquiry heard evidence about the “destabilising behaviour of a number of individuals” – including former No 10 adviser Dominic Cummings.
It said that by failing to tackle this chaotic culture – “and, at times, actively encouraging it” – former PM Boris Johnson “reinforced a culture in which the loudest voices prevailed and the views of other colleagues, particularly women, often went ignored, to the detriment of good decision-making”.
‘Misleading assurances’
The inquiry found all four governments in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland failed to understand the urgency of response the pandemic demanded in the early part of 2020.
The report reads: “This was compounded, in part, by misleading assurances from the Department of Health and Social Care and the widely held view that the UK was well prepared for a pandemic.”
The report notes how the UK government took a “high risk” when it significantly eased restrictions in England in July 2020 – “despite scientific advisers’ concerns about the public health risks of doing so”.
Lady Hallett has made 19 key recommendations which, if followed, she believes will better protect the UK in any future pandemic and improve decision-making in a crisis.
Repeated failings ‘inexcusable’
In a statement following the publication of Thursday’s report, Lady Hallett said there was a “serious failure” by all four governments to appreciate the level of “risk and calamity” facing the UK.
She said: “The tempo of the response should have been increased. It was not. February 2020 was a lost month.”
Read more:
A timeline of the UK’s response to the pandemic
Lady Hallett said the inquiry does not advocate for national lockdowns, which she said should have been avoided if at all possible.
She said: “But to avoid them, governments must take timely and decisive action to control a spreading virus. The four governments of the UK did not.”
Lady Hallett said none of the governments were adequately prepared for the challenges and risks that a lockdown presented, and that many of the same failings were repeated later in 2020, which she said was “inexcusable”.
She added: “Each government had ample warning that the prevalence of the virus was increasing and would continue to do so into the winter months. Yet again, there was a failure to take timely and effective action.”
-
Sports2 years agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports3 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Sports3 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment1 year agoHere are the best electric bikes you can buy at every price level in October 2024