CND’S CALL for us to “invest in peace, not nukes” is very timely. I’m proud that my union RMT has been affiliated to CND for many years.

My friend, RMT’s late general secretary Bob Crow, used to say that RMT members have the same reasons as every other working-class person to campaign for peace and against war.

But our trade union, RMT, has an additional reason. Because RMT represents seafarers in the Royal Fleet Auxiliary, the civilian logistics arm of the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines. These civilian workers are deployed directly into theatres of war.

Sadly, Crow died in 2014. If he were here today, he would be marching alongside us as he did 22 years ago against the illegal war in Iraq. Today, he would call out the British state’s collusion with Israel’s genocide in Gaza. He would condemn the British government’s use of RAF planes to bomb civilians in Yemen. He would lead us to protest at the Starmer government’s policy of funding and fuelling a proxy war in Ukraine.

Crow vehemently opposed Trident nuclear submarines and would have been aghast at the eyewatering cost of the Trident Renewal programme, predicted to cost £205 billion. 

Rachel Reeves has reneged on Labour’s promise to Waspi women and tells us she won’t lift the two-child benefit cap. She cuts winter fuel allowance for pensioners, and personal independence payments that allow disabled people to live independent lives.

But arms spending is on the up escalator. Reeves’s cross-departmental spending review in June demands 5 per cent spending cuts across all government departments — all except defence.

Labour’s policy today is for public spending on warfare, not welfare — bombs, not jobs.

For anyone who wants an antidote to this madness, the excellent May 20 Morning Star article by Arthur West, former Scottish CND chair and a member of the Scottish Trade Union Network, “Welfare, not warfare must be our rallying cry,” spells out our alternative. 

West points out that while Keir Starmer has pledged to increase Britain’s military budget to 2.5 per cent of GDP by 2027, research by the Peace Pledge Union shows that in 2024, we already had the fifth-highest military spending in the world.

Britain already spends more on arms than France, Germany and Spain in nominal terms and as a share of GDP, even before Starmer’s planned increase, or the cost overruns that are an inevitable feature of military spending projects.

Britain is set to spend a minimum of £288.6bn on military equipment in the next decade.

As the only major manufacturing sector directed by government contracts, the military-industrial complex consumes a disproportionate share of the skilled research and development workforce. Between 1987 and 2009, the military sector received 35 per cent of British public research and development funding.

Research by the Scottish Trade Union Peace Network and CND shows military spending has one of the lowest employment multipliers of all economic categories.

Sectors such as construction and manufacturing are far more job-rich than military spending. Investing in healthcare is two and a half times more job-rich than arms spending.

In 2025, British government ministers repeatedly held up military spending as “an engine of growth” for the British economy.

But as Reeves has demonstrated, increased military spending occurs at the expense of other areas of public spending.

Her 2025 Spring Statement funded increases in defence spending previously announced by Starmer in February, by cutting overseas aid. Diane Abbott MP has now tabled a parliamentary early day motion calling for a reversal of the international aid and public spending cuts announced in Reeves’s Spring Statement.

The economic fallacy of so-called “military Keynesianism” recycled by advocates of arms spending relies on the assertion that military spending generates wider positive economic and social effects through technology, research and development, and jobs.

But building a tank, a bomb, or a missile system confers little benefit to the wider economy and zero benefit in improved efficiency, speed or productivity in other economic sectors.

By contrast, investment in public infrastructure, such as new roads, railways, or technology in universities, rarely generates direct financial profits. But benefits to the end users — that’s us — and wider consumers through quicker journeys, cheaper rail fares and transportation costs, new medical procedures or scientific techniques which all serve to raise prosperity across society and raise tax income from increased economic activity.

Military spending generates a smaller economic multiplier than other public investments, because it generates less overall economic activity and fewer secondary benefits than spending on essential services or infrastructure.

A real-life example of this is that in 2019, every £1 spent in the rail industry generated £2.50 of income — a 250 per cent economic multiplier effect from railway investment. Britain’s rail sector supported £43bn of economic production in 2019 and raised just over £14bn in tax revenue.

In the case of Plymouth and the south-west, this is not just a dry economic statistic. The increased frequency and severity of extreme weather events in Britain, driven by climate change, significantly impacts our Victorian-era transport infrastructure.

In 2014, Plymouth, South Devon and Cornwall were cut off for 60 days as storms smashed the seawall at Dawlish and severed the only railway line connecting them to the national rail network. The need for improved resilience of existing transport infrastructure and for alternative rail routes that strengthen regional economies is clear.

Investing in the rail network in Devon, for example, would benefit local communities through stronger, more reliable economic infrastructure, improved services, jobs, training, higher wages and increased employment.

By contrast, servicing nuclear submarines offers more limited economic benefits. And with global labour supply chains, many of these benefits are increasingly offshored.

So, the claim by the new military Keynesians, such as Defence Secretary John Healey, that military spending is jobs-rich does not add up. It relies on unevidenced assertions. Indeed, most of the profit generated by the arms industry is not reinvested in Britain.

Britain’s biggest defence contractor, BAE Systems, is a joint US-British company, most of whose capital is invested in the US and a majority of whose major shareholders are US investment companies, including BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager.

It is essential to dispose of the fallacy promoted by John Healey, Rachel Reeves, Keir Starmer and others that the arms industry creates jobs and wealth for working people.

The arms industry does not create wealth for working people. It sucks wealth from working-class communities to create profits for US arms monopolies. It is poisoning our planet and killing our children.

The campaign that CND has launched to draw attention to the damage that nuclear submarine bases inflict on local communities and our wider economy is long overdue.

Come and join us in Plymouth on June 7 to say invest in peace, not nukes — welfare, not warfare.

On Saturday June 7, CND will demonstrate at Devonport dockyard in Plymouth, where Britain’s nuclear-armed Vanguard submarine fleet is serviced in one of England’s most deprived constituencies — visit CNDuk.org for details.