Sign up to save your podcasts
Or
Share Defence Spending, Resilience and Growth
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Or
Defence Spending, Resilience and Growth
Blain’s Morning Porridge Feb 18th, 2026 – Defence Spending, Resilience and Growth
“To save the village it was necessary to destroy it.”
The Russians have captured the FT, apparently! The headline that Gilts are about to crash because the Government will borrow more to increase defence spending is Pravda 101. The reality is Gilts should rally on increasing the strategic deterrence that defence spending will create.
If you wish for peace, be prepared for war. Strategic Deterrence is the most valuable form of infrastructure a nation can possess.
There is a worrying story in the FT this morning – “Gilt investors warn about “ruse” to fund higher UK defence spending.” It goes on to describe a potential backlash and “self-defeating” rise in borrowing costs if the Government tries to spend more on defence by issuing more debt. I had to check the byline – has the Pink-Un been bought by one of Putin’s oligarchs?
The story caught my interest for a number of reasons. I guess the journalists needed a story to counter UK Premier Sir Keir Starmer saying something sensible. Yesterday, he said he’s going to move faster to increase defence spending – wow, I’ve always believed Starmer means well, so it’s great to see him do something right. (But, as a chum said last night; give him a few months to fret about how to increase defence spending to 3% by 2029 without upsetting the bond market and Labour’s left-wing, and spending might even decline!)
The FT article cites a “leading investor” saying “I’m not the sure the bond market would like it.” Another said the market would be “sceptical about a carve-out”. Beats me how these guys are sitting in senior investment management roles – surely, they realise their investments in Gilts and the UK are likely to be made more secure by spending that discourages the Russians (or whomever else) attacking us? Perhaps not…. (I’ll come back to that below.)
A few weeks ago, one of my chums in the Labour Party let slip the Government’s 10-year Defence Investment Plan is being delayed in the hope of peace in Ukraine. The thinking is simple; if Trump can force a “ceasefire”, then the immediate need for rearmament diminishes, putting less pressure on Treasury to find money immediately for guns, and giving Starmer some funds to placate the left-wingers clamouring for more on the butter of welfare spending!
One of the most basic duties of any state is defence. It’s a complex two-part problem that goes beyond the guns or butter paradox:
- The first is paying for defence – which the UK is currently failing. Not because we don’t spend enough, but because we spend it badly!
- The second issue is making sure the nation is prepared to defend itself by being willing to fight. That’s more nuanced.
You can read the Morning Porridge by subscribing on www.morningporridge.com, and have it delivered fresh to your inbox every morning!
View all episodes
By Bill BlainBlain’s Morning Porridge Feb 18th, 2026 – Defence Spending, Resilience and Growth
“To save the village it was necessary to destroy it.”
The Russians have captured the FT, apparently! The headline that Gilts are about to crash because the Government will borrow more to increase defence spending is Pravda 101. The reality is Gilts should rally on increasing the strategic deterrence that defence spending will create.
If you wish for peace, be prepared for war. Strategic Deterrence is the most valuable form of infrastructure a nation can possess.
There is a worrying story in the FT this morning – “Gilt investors warn about “ruse” to fund higher UK defence spending.” It goes on to describe a potential backlash and “self-defeating” rise in borrowing costs if the Government tries to spend more on defence by issuing more debt. I had to check the byline – has the Pink-Un been bought by one of Putin’s oligarchs?
The story caught my interest for a number of reasons. I guess the journalists needed a story to counter UK Premier Sir Keir Starmer saying something sensible. Yesterday, he said he’s going to move faster to increase defence spending – wow, I’ve always believed Starmer means well, so it’s great to see him do something right. (But, as a chum said last night; give him a few months to fret about how to increase defence spending to 3% by 2029 without upsetting the bond market and Labour’s left-wing, and spending might even decline!)
The FT article cites a “leading investor” saying “I’m not the sure the bond market would like it.” Another said the market would be “sceptical about a carve-out”. Beats me how these guys are sitting in senior investment management roles – surely, they realise their investments in Gilts and the UK are likely to be made more secure by spending that discourages the Russians (or whomever else) attacking us? Perhaps not…. (I’ll come back to that below.)
A few weeks ago, one of my chums in the Labour Party let slip the Government’s 10-year Defence Investment Plan is being delayed in the hope of peace in Ukraine. The thinking is simple; if Trump can force a “ceasefire”, then the immediate need for rearmament diminishes, putting less pressure on Treasury to find money immediately for guns, and giving Starmer some funds to placate the left-wingers clamouring for more on the butter of welfare spending!
One of the most basic duties of any state is defence. It’s a complex two-part problem that goes beyond the guns or butter paradox:
- The first is paying for defence – which the UK is currently failing. Not because we don’t spend enough, but because we spend it badly!
- The second issue is making sure the nation is prepared to defend itself by being willing to fight. That’s more nuanced.
You can read the Morning Porridge by subscribing on www.morningporridge.com, and have it delivered fresh to your inbox every morning!