Britain should spend less on defence. It is a waste of money and should be reduced so more could be spent on supporting employment, welfare and growth.

Why is there no such debate? Why should “defence” be awarded an almost religious invulnerability? At present, parliament, broadcasters, print and social media, thinktanks and pundits all admit to only two points of view. One is that Britain should spend more on defence, the other is that it should spend far more.

Yes, Russia is fighting in Ukraine and making a nuisance of itself in many ways. But while the case for domestic spending is glaring, that for greater military preparedness is not. Army chiefs in Europe apparently claim Russia is ready, and we must assume intending, to march to war across Europe “by 2029”, just three years’ time. The absurd date seems intended to get Europe’s taxpayers to facing up to the US’s understandable reluctance to act as Nato’s military backbone. Keir Starmer’s defence investment plan commits a “mere” 2.7% of GDP for defence by 2030, an amount believed to be a come-on to Vladimir Putin, while Nato’s target of 3.5% by 2035 would apparently have him quaking in his boots.

Even 2.7% is too much, however. There is no evidence that Russia has evil designs on British territory that require a massive deterrent force. That one nation may have the capacity to........

© The Guardian