Most democratic legislatures seat their members in a horseshoe or hemisphere. The House of Commons is unusual with two sides facing each other head-on.
It is at the heart of our constitutional system that the government should be opposed: there must always be something to debate, and therefore something to disagree about. Ours is probably the most confrontational legislature in the democratic world.
That makes it all the more striking, all the more powerful, when the whole House is as one. That was the case last Monday, at the PM’s statement on Ukraine and meetings in Washington and London over the previous few days.
Parliament was united in support of Ukraine. United, too, in valuing our alliances with the US, European nations, and NATO.
There was also a wide, sober realisation of the gravity of the international security situation, and how the world has changed.
For years, we and many countries had become accustomed to a ‘peace dividend’ from the end of the Cold War. But new threats have arisen since. And then came Putin’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, a sovereign democratic European nation.
It has been clear for some time that defence spending needs to rise. In April last year, Rishi Sunak announced that it would rise to £87 bn, or 2.5% of GDP, by 2030.
Other NATO countries are also spending more. Ten member nations hit the 2% target in 2023, but 23 were expected to last year. The new German Chancellor is committed to significant growth.
But the United States is still a disproportionately high defence spender, at 3.4% of its real GDP (in NATO, only Poland and Estonia are higher as a % of GDP) – and of course that’s a higher percentage of a much higher GDP.
The PM filled in the timing for the UK’s increase to 2.5% and stated the ambition to increase again to 3% in the next Parliament. As the Opposition, we support these moves.
Supporting such an increase is the easy part. There is then the question of where the money comes from. Taxes are already high; but I do believe the government can make economies from getting more people back to work.
Ministers have decided to take the money – at least for the first move, to 2.5% – from overseas development. I am not one of those that believes this is ‘free’ money. As well as the altruistic case, there is also self interest in development, which grows the world economy, and indeed can help reduce armed conflicts.
But I do accept the hierarchy of imperatives here, and the urgency, and that these funds can more quickly be diverted.
But we will also need to return to the hard-headed case for effective international development.
