Starmer is an odd bloke: rarely willing to promote a policy on its own merits**, preferring to invoke (or invent) some supposed side-benefits and focus on them. "Net zero" and renewables? No mention of zero-what these days; it's all "growth & jobs", "cheaper energy" (yeah, right), "home-grown / less threat from Putin" and "energy security" (always the last refuge of a scoundrel) instead.
Now we have his Defence *aspirations* (or whatever 3% of GDP at some unspecified future date should be termed), and we're to think of them as Military Keynsianism: "a defence dividend for the British people, using this moment to drive jobs and investment throughout the country, providing local opportunities, skilled work, community pride".
It is, I suppose, just possible that a round of additional defence contracts - if such can be conjured out of Reeves' Treasury plans - will result in some of those things. But if, as so often, it all descends into pork-barrel politics - e.g. Gordon Brown's risible aircraft carriers, oft discussed here - does anything worthwhile come out from the defence point of view? Much as I'd like to think it would, I have me doubts as they say.
PS: what's a "10-times more lethal army", pray?
ND
_______________
** By contrast, his recent immigration policy statement was promoted on the back of it being "right - because it is fair, and because it is what I believe in", Boris Johnson's opening of the immigration floodgates being a "squalid chapter". Heady stuff. Farage concentrates the mind wonderfully.