Letters to the Editor – week ending 18 January 2026

Read what people have been writing to our editor about this week. Find out how to share your own views here.

The costs of war, the war on costs

Peter Hain’s argument that the government should borrow to finance an armaments drive has three problems.

Firstly, the quantity of money required to reach 5% of GDP on war would be £77billion every year. George Robertson’s projection for Euro NATO standing alone without the United States is 7%. The costs of paying the interest on this rapidly accumulating debt would be crippling, and it would act as an enormous financial black hole sucking resources away from everything worth while that government can do.

Overseas aid was just the start. A militarisation drive would impoverish us across the board, as well as, with “a whole society approach”, copper bottom restrictions on dissent and pose questioning as treason. “Military Keynesianism” is also a mirage. Investment in weaponry does not build anything worthwhile that people can use, or that makes life better, as investment in sustainable energy, health services, public transport etc do.

Secondly, the presumption of an impending war with Russia – in which we should be prepared to “lose our children” -is a form of madness. It is posed as a defensive response to Russian aggression. But Russia has neither the capacity nor the desire to attack the rest of Europe. It has taken them four years to occupy parts of Ukraine that mostly speak Russian and where they have substantial local support. Trying to occupy Western Ukraine or, say, Poland, where they would face intense hostility from the top to the bottom of society would be, as US Conservative analyst John Mearsheimer puts it “like trying to swallow a porcupine” 

At the moment, Euro NATO, without the USA, already outspends the Russians by 3.5 to 1, has twice as many service personnel and advantages in all kinds of war material that range from twice as many aircraft and tanks to three times as many artillery pieces. Trying to double this again cannot be seen as defensive, but is preparation for a possible offensive operation which, if carried out successfully, couldn’t help but trigger Russia’s nuclear thresholds so, to put it bluntly, this is a course that can only end in us all being killed by it. The alternative of finding a European modus vivendi with Russia through negotiation seems to have been lost in a red mist. Time to sober up.

Finally, there is no collision with Trump. European NATO countries will not stand up to him over Greenland, they will accommodate. Justified hostility to Trump is being used to give him exactly what he wants – a huge arms drive that will further disadvantage European economies, lock them into a confrontation with Russia, to the mutual harm of both – and leave him with a free hand to intervene at will across the rest of the world while preparing for the ultimate military showdown with China  before its too late (before the US is overhauled by peaceful economic competition and its fatal, fossil fuel based paradigm of modernity tossed into the dustbin of history by the spread of cheap Chinese solar panels).

None of us has any interest in any of that. We cannot afford to sleepwalk into World War 3 the way that the Great Powers did into World War 1; any talk of war being “inevitable” tends to become a self fulfilling prophecy. As we won’t survive such a war, it is profoundly irresponsible and light minded to become a cheerleader for the course towards it.

Paul Atkin

*****

Dear Sir,

I wish to comment on Peter Hain’s article “Starmer and Reeves must break with Treasury orthodoxy to fund Britain’s security.”

Hypothecation is a word that includes “earmarking tax revenues for a specific purpose” Raising the basic rate of income tax by 2p would generate approximately £11 – £13.7 billion in annual revenue for the Treasury.

Notwithstanding Labour’s pledge NOT to raise income tax levels, it is my belief that if it were solely for increasing the UK’s defence spending, the British Public would go along with it.

Yours faithfully,

Jonathan Harris.

 *****

Reference Peter Hains proposition; there needs to be more specificity regarding what would additional defence spending would be on. Cyber security must be the top priority. The whole country, including its citizens, is vulnerable to attack more than physical aggression. 

After that what??? The defence community has not laid out its plans in the light of the most likely scenarios given the madness of trump and putin. So before we borrow (it is “we” as we pay for it) let’s see what the money will buy. We need answers fast.

Mike Freedman

*****

Build baby, build?

There are a number of issues with the current Planning Reform proposals.

Generally, the reforms must address the issue of land banking. We see that presently, due to market conditions, house building has slowed to support prices. There must therefore be a “time is of the essence” requirement within any planning reform, in other words the site MUST be built at a rate agreed with the approving Council.

Secondly, without addressing land pricing and hence “hope value” there is little prospect, particularly in rural areas, of building affordable houses for social rent at scale.

This is because social housing providers, such as Amplius, only value such homes at between 45 and 55% of the developers asking price. At the same time many people who live and work in rural areas are amongst our lowest paid.

There is therefore a basic issue of affordability and how that gap is bridged. I am suggesting that with current limits on Govt borrowing the issue of land pricing must be addressed.

So, the question we have to answer is do we want thriving rural communities or not.

Cllr Ramsay Ross
Leader of the Labour Group
Rutland County Council

*****

Yorkshire’s rail disasters are not bad luck. They are the predictable result of a system that keeps this region permanently stuck at red lights, while others sail through on green.

Since 2019, promise after promise has collapsed. The eastern leg of HS2 to Leeds was cancelled outright — not delayed, not redesigned, simply removed. Yorkshire lost its biggest infrastructure commitment in generations, while investment elsewhere kept moving.

At the same time, the TransPennine route has become a daily ordeal. Years of disruption, cancellations and reduced services have turned a vital east–west line into an endurance test. Fares go up, reliability goes down, and passengers are told to wait.

We are told elected mayors are the answer. They aren’t. They don’t control rail, they don’t control the funding, and they can’t stop Whitehall switching the signals back to red. They can protest, but they cannot decide. That isn’t devolution — it’s powerlessness with a title.

The despair comes from knowing this will keep happening. Different governments, same outcome. Yorkshire halted, again and again, while others got the green light.

There is only one way out: One Yorkshire Regional Governance. A single regional authority with real powers over transport and infrastructure, able to plan long-term and be accountable here, not in London.

Until then, Yorkshire will remain on the sidings — not through lack of ambition, but through lack of power.

John Hall
Pannal, North Yorkshire

*****

Kerry McCarthy MP is absolutely right in her analysis of new voting patterns and blocs. 

Unfortunately progressive voters who have migrated to the Greens, to Your Party or to the Libdems are not going to return to Labour very soon. 

Unless we accept the necessity (and democratic fairness) of adopting Proportional Representation before the next election it will be a case of “roll the dice” and any outcome is possible, including the disaster of a Reform led government.

Yours, 

Hugh Legge
Northampton

Share your thoughts by writing to our Editor. The best letters every week will be published on the site. Find out how to get your letter published.