Welfare or warfare? Britain should reject this false choice

George Robertson’s recent intervention cuts to the heart of a dangerous idea now gaining ground in British politics: that if the government wants to spend more on the military, it should look to welfare to make room for it.

That should concern all of us. It sets up a false choice in which support for ordinary people is treated as negotiable, while spending on war is treated as beyond question.

This is not just rhetoric. The government has already committed to raising defence spending to 2.5% of GDP from April 2027, with an ambition to reach 3% in the next parliament. It has also already shown how this kind of uplift can be funded: by cutting UK aid from 0.5% to 0.3% of GNI. In other words, when military spending rises, other priorities are pushed aside.

And the pressure is growing. Reuters reported on 16 April 2026 that Chancellor Rachel Reeves does not believe extra defence spending should be funded through higher taxes or more borrowing.

That leaves the same obvious conclusion hanging in the air: if ministers are determined to spend more on the military, they will look elsewhere to find the money. Welfare becomes a target not because the public demanded it, but because militarism is once again being placed at the top of the queue.

This is exactly why Conscience exists. We campaign for a country where taxes are used to nurture peace, not pay for war. We call for a progressive increase in the amount of UK tax spent on peacebuilding, a decrease in the amount spent on war and preparation for war, and the legal right of people with a conscientious objection to military taxation to have that part of their taxes spent on peaceful purposes instead.

Because the real question is bigger than one budget argument. What kind of security do we actually believe in? A government can pour more money into weapons systems, military build-up and war preparation. But that does not automatically make people safer.

Real security also means decent housing, healthcare, income, stable communities, diplomacy, conflict prevention and long-term peacebuilding. Conscience’s own research points to the strength and range of non-military security solutions that already exist, but which are too often sidelined when military spending is treated as the default answer.

For those with a conscientious objection to war, the problem is even sharper. They are compelled to contribute to military spending through taxation, even when it violates their deepest moral convictions.

Conscience has long argued that people should be able to pay their taxes in full without being forced to fund war preparations against conscience. That is not a fringe demand. It is a serious question of freedom of conscience, democratic choice and public ethics.

Britain does not need a politics that pits disabled people, low-income households or public services against a growing war budget. It needs the courage to challenge the priorities behind that choice.

If the debate is now moving in the direction of “welfare or warfare”, then Conscience’s answer is clear: we should be building a society that funds peace, protects people, and respects conscience.