Britain’s annual Remembrance Day has a special dimension this year because it is the 80th anniversary of the D-Day landings.
The speaker of the House of Commons, Sir Lindsay Hoyle, and the Imperial War Museum are arranging for images of the men and women who took part in the Normandy campaign to be projected on the Elizabeth Tower below Big Ben.
Political leaders past and present will be on parade to lay wreaths at the Cenotaph, which commemorates “Our Glorious Dead” from two world wars and other military conflicts. Those assembled see no contradiction in the fact they are all bound to have been involved in cuts to the UK’s defence capabilities.
D-Day, when British and American troops fought on to the beaches to liberate Europe, is the defining moment of the UK’s patriotic pride to this day – which is why it was a big mistake by Rishi Sunak in the summer to duck out early from France and the international commemorations of 6 June 1944.
Ever since then Britain and Europe have nestled in the security umbrella extended by the United States.
The Americans came, belatedly, to the rescue in both world wars and we assume that it would do so again. The North Atlantic Treaty (NATO) is explicit that an attack on one member is an attack on all, and the US is the dominant contributor to NATO in both cash and military might.
There was already fresh uneasiness among British politicians about how safe we really are as tensions grow around the world from Ukraine to the Middle East to China. A recent House of Commons report was entitled “Ready For War?”.
Russia’s territorial aggression against Ukraine has brought bloody confrontation between nation states back on to our continent.
Advertisement
Meanwhile, Mr Trump, the US president-elect, has said he feels no obligation to defend European countries who do not spend as much as he thinks they should.
Given the enthusiasm of successive governments to cash a peace dividend by cutting back defence spending, there are real doubts as to whether the UK would be able to defend itself if it came to another war, according to General Sir Roly Walker, who has taken over as the head of UK armed forces.
This summer he set himself the task of readying “to deter or fight a war in three years”.
He is aiming to double the “lethality” of the army in the face of threats from Russia, China, Iran and North Korea which may be separate or co-ordinated.
The recent BRICS summit in Russia and the deployment of North Korean troops to fight with Vladimir Putin’s forces in Ukraine both show their willingness to internationalise local conflicts. George Robertson, the former defence secretary and NATO general secretary heading a defence review for the government, has also identified the threat from this “deadly quartet”.
General Walker says he can increase lethality within existing spending by smarter use of technology such as drones and AI.
Follow Sky News on WhatsApp
Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News
The problem is that this will still require diverting resources from existing capabilities, when deployable fighting manpower is already at its lowest for 200 years.
British politicians are increasingly aware of the need to strengthen capability and a number of overlapping inquiries are under way.
But given the overall pressures on the national budget, they have been reluctant to focus on the full financial implications.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
10:09
Badenoch calls out Lammy at PMQs
At Prime Minister’s Questions on Wednesday, the new leader of the opposition Kemi Badenoch challenged Sir Kier Starmer to say when the UK will spend 2.5% of GDP on defence; he retorted that it remains an unspecified commitment but that the last Labour government was the last to spend as much. From Mr Cameron to Mr Sunak, the Conservatives never did.
This sparring ignores the reality that for effective security, spending will need to rocket to 3% and beyond, and that Mr Trump may well be the one making that demand.
The US spends 3.5% of its national wealth – matching 68% of the defence spending of all the other members on its own.
They have not all yet hit the official NATO target of 2%, designed in part to “Trump proof” the alliance against the possibility of an American pullout.
The US currently has 100,000 troops based in Europe, increased by 20,000 since Mr Putin’s attack in 2022.
The next Trump administration will certainly want to reduce that number. But a slow reduction of the US commitment is happening in any case.
This week, Professor Malcom Chalmers told MPs on the Defence Select Committee: “The most plausible planning assumption for the UK right now is that America will provide a progressively smaller proportion of NATO’s overall capability and we are going to have to fill those gaps.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:10
Can Trump’s tariffs impact the UK?
Given the likelihood that Mr Trump’s proposed new tariffs will slow the global economy, Sir Keir and the Labour government will have even less to spend on public services than it is proposing. It seems inconceivable that the UK would willingly go beyond 2.5%, whatever the current defence review says is necessary for the defence of the realm.
Just in current defence spending, John Healey, the new defence secretary, claimed he had inherited a £17bn “black hole” of unfunded planned spending from the Conservatives.
Ukraine is likely to be the first flashpoint.
Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s supporters want the US to increase its military aid when the US wants Europe to take more of the burden of defending itself as the US “pivots” to the greater threat it sees to itself from China.
Mr Trump has said he plans to end the Ukraine conflict in 24 hours.
In essence, Mr Putin would keep some of his territorial claims in Donbas and NATO would not extend its security guarantee to what remains of an independent Ukraine.
Mr Trump has already said that NATO’s longstanding and vague offer of eventual membership was “a mistake”.
Anxious not to alienate the US further and hard-pressed financially, some leading European nations including Germany appear ready to go along with such a sell-out.
Spreaker
This content is provided by Spreaker, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Spreaker cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Spreaker cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Spreaker cookies for this session only.
A number of security experts, including former acting deputy prime minister Sir David Lidington, say this deal would be “Donald Trump’s Munich”.
This is a reference to the “peace in our time” deal agreed by prime minister Neville Chamberlain with Adolf Hitler, which failed to halt further aggression by Nazi Germany before the Second World War.
Then, as previously with the First World War, “America First” instincts were to leave the Europeans to sort out their own mess. But American forces ended up shedding their blood decisively in both conflicts.
Once again, the UK and Europe are not ready for war, and relying on an increasingly unreliable US. The politicians, prime ministers and generals gathering at the Cenotaph to honour the war dead should have much on their minds.
Labour MPs who are opposed to legalising assisted dying believe the momentum is swinging behind their side of the campaign, Sky News has learnt.
MPs are currently weighing up whether to back a change in the law that would give terminally ill people with six months to live the choice to end their lives.
At a meeting in parliament on Wednesday, Sky News understands Labour MPs on the opposing side of the argument agreed that those who were undecided on the bill were leaning towards voting against it.
One Labour backbencher involved in the whipping operation for the no camp told Sky News: “The undecideds are breaking to us, we feel.”
The source said that many of those who were undecided were new MPs who had expressed concerns that not enough time had been given to debate the bill.
“They feel they are too new to be asked to do something as substantive as this,” they said.
Issues that were being brought up as potential blocks to voting for the legislation include that doctors would be able to suggest assisted dying to an ill patient, they said.
The source added: “We were elected to sort the NHS out rather than assisted dying.
Advertisement
“And there is no going back on this – if any doubt, you should vote it out.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:30
Labour MP Kim Leadbeater discusses End of Life Bill
The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, put forward by Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, is due to be debated on 29 November, when MPs will be given a “free vote” and allowed to vote with their conscience as opposed to along party lines.
In a recent letter to ministers, Cabinet Secretary Simon Case said the prime minister had decided to “set aside collective responsibility on the merits of this bill” and that the government would “remain neutral” on its passage and the matter of assisted dying.
There has been much debate about the bill since its details were published on Monday evening, including that the medicine that will end a patient’s life will need to be self-administered and that people must be terminally ill and expected to die within six months.
Ms Leadbeater, who has the support of former government minister Lord Falconer and ChildLine founder Dame Esther Rantzen, believes her proposed legislation is the “most robust” in the world and contains safeguards she hopes will “reassure” those who are on the fence.
They include that two independent doctors must confirm a patient is eligible for assisted dying and that a High Court judge must give their approval.
The bill will also include punishments of up to 14 years in prison for those who break the law, including coercing someone into ending their own life or pressuring them to take life-ending medicine.
She has also argued the fact terminally ill patients will have to make the choice themselves and administer the drugs themselves “creates that extra level of safeguards and protections”.
However, several cabinet ministers – including Health Secretary Wes Streeting and Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood, who would be responsible for the new law – have spoken out against the legislation.
The health secretary warned that a new assisted dying law could come at the expense of other NHS services – and that there could be “trade-offs” elsewhere.
Sky News understands Ms Leadbeater has said she is “disappointed” by Mr Streeting’s comments about the bill.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
7:03
Tory MP: ‘Impossible’ for assisted dying bill to be safe
And another Labour MP who is voting for the legislation told Sky News they believed Mr Streeting had “overstepped the mark”.
“I think it’s a bit of a false exercise,” they said.
“It’s definitely going to raise eyebrows – it’s one thing to sound the alarm but he is purposefully helping the other side.”
The MP said that while it did feel “the momentum is moving away from us, a lot of it will come down to the debate and argument in the chamber”.
“Some of the scaremongering tactics might backfire,” they added.
“It’s still all to play for but it’s undoubtedly true the other side seems to be making headway at the moment.”
A source close to Mr Streeting told Sky News: “Wes has approached this issue in a genuine and considerate way, setting out his own view while respecting others’ views.”
As a private member’s bill that has been put down by a backbencher rather than a government minister, the legislation will not receive as much time for consideration as a government bill – but proponents say it can always be amended and voted down at later stages.
At Prime Minister’s Questions on Wednesday, Tory MP Sir Alec Shelbrooke questioned whether enough time had been set aside to debate the bill and urged Sir Keir Starmer to allow two days, or 16 hours, of “protected time” to “examine and debate” the legislation before the vote.
Sir Keir replied: “I do think there is sufficient time allocated to it but it is an important issue.”
Health Secretary Wes Streeting has ordered his department to carry out a review of the costs of potentially changing the law to legalise assisted dying.
It comes as MPs weigh up whether to vote for a change in the law when given the opportunity to do so later this month.
The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, put forward by Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, would give terminally ill people with six months to live the choice to end their lives.
There has been much debate about the bill since its details were published on Monday evening, including that the medicine that will end a patient’s life will need to be self-administered and that people must be terminally ill and expected to die within six months.
Ms Leadbeater, who has the support of former government minister Lord Falconer and ChildLine founder Dame Esther Rantzen, believes her proposed legislation is the “most robust” in the world and contains safeguards she hopes will “reassure” those who are on the fence.
More on Assisted Dying
Related Topics:
They include that two independent doctors must confirm a patient is eligible for assisted dying and that a High Court judge must give their approval.
The Labour MP has argued the fact terminally ill patients will have to make the choice themselves and administer the drugs themselves “creates that extra level of safeguards and protections”.
Advertisement
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
10:38
MP discusses End of Life Bill
However, several cabinet ministers – including Mr Streeting and Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood, who would be responsible for the new law – have spoken out against the legislation.
Announcing the review, Mr Streeting said: “Now that we’ve seen the bill published, I’ve asked my department to look at the costs that would be associated with providing a new service to enable assisted dying to go forward, because I’m very clear that regardless of my own personal position or my own vote, my department and the whole government will respect the will of parliament if people vote for assisted dying.”
Ms Leadbeater has said she is “disappointed” with Mr Streeting’s comments – telling The House magazine the health secretary’s comments “suggest he hasn’t read the bill”.
While the health secretary has warned of the potential cost downsides for the NHS, his critics have pointed out there may be potential savings to be made if patients need less care because they choose to end their own lives – something Mr Streeting branded a “chilling slippery slope argument”.
“I would hate for people to opt for assisted dying because they think they’re saving someone somewhere money – whether that’s relatives or the NHS,” he said.
“And I think that’s one of the issues that MPs are wrestling with as they decide how to cast their vote.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
7:03
‘Impossible’ for assisted bill to be safe
“But this is a free vote – the government’s position is neutral.”
Speaking to reporters after delivering a speech to the NHS Providers conference in Liverpool, Mr Streeting said there were “choices and trade-offs” and that “any new service comes at the expense of other competing pressures and priorities”.
“That doesn’t mean people should vote against it on that basis,” he said.
“People need to weigh up this choice in the way that we’re weighing up all these other choices at the moment.”
MPs will debate and vote on Ms Leadbeater’s Private Member’s Bill on 29 November, in what will be the first Commons vote on assisted dying since 2015.
The government has given MPs a “free vote” on the issue, meaning they will be able to vote according to their conscience and without the pressure to conform to party lines.
The government is set to introduce a voluntary levy on tickets for concerts at stadiums and arenas to help fund grassroots venues.
Ministers expect the music industry to push through their proposals “as soon as possible” for shows next year, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) said.
The government argues that an “industry-led” levy “within the price of a ticket” would be the quickest and most effective way for revenues from the biggest shows to help the grassroots sector.
“Ministers have made clear that they want to see a voluntary levy come into effect as soon as possible for concerts in 2025, with clear communication to fans on the purpose of the levy and the benefits it will bring to the grassroots sector,” the DCMS said.
Smaller venues have struggled in recent years after the pandemic and rising inflation.
Some bands have already started to donate part of their ticket sales to help fund smaller venues.
Enter Shikari gave £1 of every ticket sold for their 2024 arena tour to the Music Venue Trust while Coldplay have also pledged to donate 10% of profits from their upcoming UK stadium tour to support smaller venues.
More on Music
Related Topics:
Creative industries minister Sir Chris Bryant said: “Grassroots music venues are one of the UK’s most valuable and yet undervalued cultural assets.”
He continued: “They are where bands try out new material, where whole new genres are born, where musicians experiment and where audiences get to experience the raw power of live music.
“These venues support thousands of jobs and are a vital part of our local communities.
“Without a flourishing grassroots music industry the rest of our music industry will wither.”
Follow Sky News on WhatsApp
Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News
Sir Chris added: “That is why I am urging the industry voluntarily to introduce a ticket levy on the biggest commercial players, to help ensure the health and future success of our entire live music industry for decades to come.”
The cross-party committee on culture, media and sport, which initially put forward the proposal, welcomed the ministerial support but said a “firm deadline” is needed on how long the industry has to take action “before the government itself steps in”.
The committee said it would hold a hearing with the sector in six months’ time if no major progress is made.