Over the past few months, we’ve been told that we have to massively increase defence spending. While the media — BBC, Sky and others — usually shouts down calls for spending bumps, they haven’t just accepted this line of thought; they’re actually bullying politicians into agreeing:
#TrevorPhillips interrogating Steve Reed on why the govt isn't increasing 'defence' spending by more and doing it faster.
This is the narrative our mainstream media is pushing. pic.twitter.com/uH48PPFNUU
— Saul Staniforth (@SaulStaniforth) June 28, 2026
The Military Industrial Complex
If you’re wondering why we need to increase defence spending, the most common answers are:
- Vaguely gesturing at China.
- Vaguely suggesting some other grand threat will emerge.
- Russia.
Russia is struggling to hold on to the meagre gains it made in Ukraine — a single nation which is not a nuclear power. The idea that Putin will come out of this with the strength to take on NATO — and to deflect our nuclear f*cking missiles — is ludicrous. And of course, this means it’s exactly the sort of horseshit our media immediately signs up to.
The reason defence hawks like Al Carns are pushing for more defence spending is simple; it’s because his buddies in the military want bigger budgets, and his allies in the arms industry want bigger contracts. And there’s a threat to all that right now, isn’t there, as we reported:
this is all happening as Iran has shown you can counter the West’s endless military expenditure with much cheaper technology. And that’s the real threat, isn’t it? Because if you can outclass a multi-million pound missile with a £10k drone, the defence industry suddenly looks much larger than it has any right to be.
This is why the shills are going to scream louder, and why their protests are going to grow ever more ridiculous.
If you’re unfamiliar with Labour’s Carns, here’s everything you need to know:
Fun fact – Al Carns was a Tory voting Colonel in June 2024 when he resigned his commission and joined the Labour Party. In July he was parachuted into the very safe Labour seat of Birmingham Selly Oak. By the Autumn he was a minister. Wowsers eh? https://t.co/Aa330Dmccj
— Gyll King Post Skip Diplomacy (@GyllKing) May 5, 2026
He’s a Tory who looks like a pencil eraser on steroids.
Not to be trusted.
Politicians like him defend defence spending because the armed forces are part of the establishment. And you know who else is part of the establishment?
The BBC, Sky and scumbag British media
As highlighted above, Trevor Phillips demanded to know why Labour isn’t ramping up military spending. When was the last time you saw a news host angrily demanding to know why the government isn’t:
- Increasing education spending.
- Ending homelessness.
- Ensuring children are well fed.
- Expanding what the NHS can offer.
- Creating the much-needed National Care Service.
The assumption from the BBC, Sky and the corporate media with all of the above is that we can’t afford it; their assumption with war, though, is that we must — we must — WE MUST!
We need to spend our money on helping people. not killing them.
This concentration on defence spending at the cost of welfare spending has a financial motive, manufacturing and selling weapons is very profitable, welfare spending is not. Taking from the poor to profit the rich.
Phillips made Peter Mandelson the best man at his wedding, by the way. And he won’t be at Sky for much longer, because he’s going to work for CBS — an outlet which was bought by a Zionist billionaire — an outlet which subsequently began running cover for Israel, and is now in the f*cking toilet when it comes to ratings:
America, you are welcome to Trevor Phillips, but as you people say — no backsies!
It wasn’t just Phillips, either:
As Kevin Maguire pointed out, the welfare bill is about 10.6% of GDP, as a proportion that's lower than most other European countries, and the majority of it goes on pensions pic.twitter.com/fQeJccsjic
— Saul Staniforth (@SaulStaniforth) June 28, 2026
Savings
The defence chiefs always want more money. Many have disputed if they actually need more money, or if they’re just trying to keep their budgets healthy for the sake of having healthy budgets. Regardless of your stance on that, there is a very simple way the armed forces can make significant savings:
- Stop involving us in illegal foreign conflicts.
- Repeat.
That ought to save you a few hundred billion, lads – and we’re happy to take a 1% tip for identifying such a significant saving opportunity.
Featured image via the Canary










The problem with the idea of govt saving money is that any savings simply contract GDP, as all govt spending is money creation. The rest is a political argument about what to spend govt created money on. I wouldn’t spend it on the military, much better to spend it on care, education, health, where it would be of direct benefit to the recipients, but then of further benefit to those around them, rippling out to be of benefit to everyone – being surrounded by healthy, well-educated and cared-for people, who will also be carers, educators, and health professionals, is good for all. Being around people who’ve been to war and/or known someone who’s been killed by war, that’s good for no one.