Lord Robertson’s claim that the UK cannot defend itself with an “ever-expanding” welfare budget has resonated loudly, given his previous positions as a Nato secretary-general and UK defence secretary. Following up on the UK’s 2025 strategic defence review, which he led, Robertson warned that low investment is leaving UK security “in peril”.

The comments have instant appeal in one sense. Defence is indeed awarded a far smaller share of the pie than social protection: 6.5% of total managed expenditure for 2026/27 against 28%, according to estimates.

The UK’s budget deficit is adding to already high public debt, and the IMF has forecast that Britain will be hit harder than other countries by the economic effects of the Iran hostilities. The government is already seeking savings from other departments as it tries to raise defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2027.

But the idea of a simple trade-off, with more weapons requiring less welfare, confuses two very different types of public spending.

Defence is part of “final” public expenditure, funding armed forces’ pay and the weapons and equipment they work with. This takes up money that can’t be assigned elsewhere in the budget, and consumes a share of national output when the government spends it.

In contrast, the welfare budget consists mainly of “transfer payments” that shift income between households. Some transfers are made according to assessed need, others also depend on past national insurance contributions. All represent a redistribution of income without any exchange of goods or services, leaving recipients to decide what to do with the money. This allows prices to steer spending away from scarce resources, while some is used to repay debts or clawed back in tax.

Demands on the public purse

As the government’s overall budget is in deficit (to the tune of around 4.5% of national income in 2025/26), it is true that welfare payments compete with other demands on the public purse. But the boost to recipients’ income is still largely offset by taxes collected from better-off households.

In principle, a country could raise its welfare budget to 100% of its GDP, by collecting all the money generated by production as tax and then paying it out to households. It would compromise efficiency, as happened in Europe’s “state socialist” countries before 1989. But such an economy could still function.

In contrast, raising the defence budget even to 3% of GDP – the UK’s target for the next parliament – will cause political and economic strain. This is due to the trade-off against other final expenditures, including healthcare, education and policing – all equally vital for national survival and security.

The UK and other countries with large welfare systems have reformed them with the aim of adding at least as much to output as to demand. Transfer payments are increasingly designed to keep people economically active, moving into new and more productive work. This matching of extra income to extra production keeps the inflation risk low, even if the government is “printing money” to fund some of its transfer payments.

Extra defence spending carries greater inflation risks. Paying for more weapons and military training generates new income and demand for consumer products. At the same time it can divert workers and materials away from civilian production, into military hardware that is intended never to be used.

Stronger defence could boost production as much as consumption if, as many advocates claim, it stimulates investment and innovations that other industries can adopt. The Manhattan Project remains a standout example of “mission-oriented” military spending that sped the arrival of new technologies and methods of organisation.

Studies confirm a pick-up in innovation and growth after major increases in military spending. But these tend to focus on the US and trace the improvement to increased research and development (R&D). Growth might be stimulated equally well, making more weapons and more welfare an affordable option, if greater sums went into R&D without a link to war preparations.

Of course, defence can be counted as an even more productive investment if, through effective deterrence, it prevents costly wars that would devastate civil production.

But again, there is an important difference between investing in military hardware and in social protection. The welfare bill is hard to forecast, as it varies with the state of the economy and trends in income and employment. But when transfer payments enable people to recover their health or acquire new skills and return to work – or when they keep pensioners out of poverty – the government gets a rapid return on its investment and reduces longer-term costs.

Investment in more soldiers and equipment may be easier to control in the short term. But it commits the government to maintenance and upgrades over the long term, without which the fighting capacity can soon become non-operational. The UK has a history of cost overshoots and delays keeping tanks and ships out of service. That’s why a Treasury set on cost-effectiveness will always choose butter over guns.

Homelessness charity Centrepoint has confirmed it has no plans to work with Sharon Osbourne in the future after she publicly endorsed a rally organised by right-wing activist Tommy Robinson.

Advertisement

Sharon Osbourne has been cut ties with by a charity after publicly backing a rally organised by controversial right-wing figure Tommy Robinson.

Homelessness charity Centrepoint has announced it has “no plans to work together in the future” with Sharon after she openly supported an upcoming demonstration orchestrated by Robinson.

In an online statement, Robinson declared he was organising the march for individuals “who have had enough of migration and mass immigration and the oppression from a tyrannical government”.

The TV star, perhaps most recognised from her time on The X Factor, used her official Instagram profile to write: “See you at the march” under a post advertising the event planned for next month, titled ‘Unite The Kingdom’. The demonstration intends to “bring London to a total standstill”.

Osbourne, whose husband, Black Sabbath icon Ozzy Osbourne, died last July at the age of 76, had previously backed Centrepoint through its Omaze fundraising campaign, offering the public a chance to win a high-end property, reports the Irish Mirror.

A Centrepoint representative made clear: “Sharon supported us on this campaign and, while she is referred to as an ambassador in that context, she was not an official ambassador for Centrepoint.”, reports the Mirror. “We have no plans to work together in the future. Political activity like this runs counter to our values and our long history of supporting young people regardless of their background, religion or ethnicity.

“If we want young people to thrive in this country, then we need to ensure our society continues to allow them to live without fear and to access the opportunities they need to start education or work and leave homelessness behind.”

The Unite the Kingdom rally is due to be held in London on 16 May, spearheaded by right-wing activist Robinson, whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon. The last demonstration in September drew crowds estimated at between 110,000 and 150,000 attendees.

In recent times, Mrs O has generated growing controversy, including online involvement with anti-immigrant campaigns. Robinson, whose birth name is Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon, co-founded the English Defence League. His 2005 conviction stemmed from assaulting an off-duty police officer.

Another assault conviction followed in 2011, resulting in a suspended sentence for head-butting someone at an EDL rally in Lancashire. That July, Robinson was given a 12-month community rehabilitation order after leading a brawl involving roughly 100 football supporters in Luton during 2010. Two years afterwards, he was imprisoned for passport fraud after attempting to enter America using someone else’s identity. In January 2014, the activist received an 18-month jail term for “conspiring with others to obtain a mortgage by misrepresentation from the Abbey and Halifax banks”. He found himself back behind bars in 2019 following a contempt of court conviction.

A five-year stalking protection order was imposed upon him in 2021 after journalist Lizzie Dearden and her partner, Samuel Partridge, filed a complaint with police. Come May 2025, he walked free halfway through an 18-month sentence he’d been serving for breaching an injunction that barred him from repeating unfounded claims about a Syrian refugee.

Want to see more of the stories you love from Belfast Live? Making us your preferred source on Google means you’ll get more of our exclusives, top stories and must-read content straight away. To add Belfast Live as a preferred source, simply click here.

Aidan Walsh, 28, had taken cocaine and cannabis before carrying out a three-point turn and driving into oncoming traffic.

A man’s motives for driving five miles the wrong way down a motorway before a fatal head-on crash “will never be known”, a probe has concluded.

Aidan Walsh, 28, had taken cocaine and cannabis before carrying out a three-point turn on the M20 and driving into oncoming traffic. The labourer, from Folkestone, Kent, dodged vehicles for seven minutes before a crash with van left him with “unsurvivable” injuries.

An inquest heard there was no clear explanation for why he turned around in the moments leading up to the crash, which happened as both drivers tried to avoid each other.

Mr Walsh had been driving a VW Polo on the London-bound carriageway between Junction 8 for Maidstone and Junction 9 for Ashford shortly before 11.30pm on November 12 when the crash happened, the Mirror reports.

In a statement read to the court, PC Darren Chapman said CCTV showed the car stopping in the road before turning around on the hard shoulder and heading in the wrong direction.

Police received multiple 999 calls at 11.28pm reporting the car travelling the wrong way, with the driver seen “swerving” between lanes. At about 11.35pm, dashcam footage from the Mercedes Sprinter van showed Mr Walsh’s headlights approaching in the distance.

The driver of the van, named only as Mr Neville, attempted to move into the other lane to avoid the oncoming car but Mr Walsh made the same manoeuvre and the vehicles collided head-on.

Mr Walsh suffered catastrophic injuries and was taken to King’s College Hospital in London, where he died the next day. The van driver escaped with minor injuries.

PC Chapman said Mr Walsh had been to visit a friend in Orpington, where it was later revealed he had smoked cannabis. Toxicology tests also revealed significant levels of cocaine in his system.

Coroner Ian Potter said the Chatham-born labourer had a history of addiction and had 70 micrograms of cocaine per litre of blood – seven times the legal driving limit.

The coroner also said the distance he had travelled while avoiding traffic indicated he did not intend to crash. In his conclusion, the investigating officer described the death as a “very sad and unusual collision”.

They added: “It remains unknown why Mr Walsh made a conscious decision to drive in the opposite direction before colliding with an oncoming vehicle. The only person able to answer that question is, very sadly, no longer here.”

Recording a conclusion of road traffic collision, the coroner said: “This is a very tragic incident. I can’t begin to imagine the pain, heartbreak and upset this causes to Mr Walsh’s friends and family and those involved. For reasons unknown, we’ll never know exactly why Mr Walsh undertook a three-point turn and began to drive in the incorrect direction.”

He added: “Mr Walsh moved from one lane to the middle lane to avoid the collision with the van. It is incredibly unfortunate that he took action at the same time as the van takes action in the same direction, making a collision at speed inevitable. This was nothing but a tragic accident. There was no evidence Mr Walsh intended to end his own life.”

Get more Daily Record exclusives by signing up for free to Google’s preferred sources. Click HERE

Spoilers are becoming a bigger and bigger problem these days.

People just don’t seem to care about ruining films and TV shows like they used to.

As a result, most people avoid social media like the plague when there’s a new series or movie out so that they can enjoy the work the way the creator intended.

Still, while everyone and their mum expect social media to spoil the fun, they have higher expectations of TV series.

Because surely no show would knowingly spoil something… would they?

Enter Gogglebox.

Yes, last night the oddly addictive show where we watch people on TV watch TV (it’s better than it sounds) spoiled one of the biggest thrillers of 2025.

Specifically, they spoiled the Sydney Sweeney drama The Housemaid by revealing … basically everything that happens in the film.

Not to follow in GoggleBox’s footsteps, but when we watched the clip, they spoiled every big twist in the film, including the ending.

Needless to say, viewers weren’t happy, and they vented their fury on social media.

@BrianOhJames wrote: ‘How can C4 get away with showing an entire movie, including unexpected twists… for laughs?’

‘Well, I won’t need to watch the Housemaid now,’ added @sundaygirl851.

Meanwhile, @Katie_Lewis said: ‘Gogglebox spoiling the Housemaid film for everyone who hadn’t seen it.’

The Housemaid, which is based on the book of the same name by Freida McFadden, was one of 2025’s most shocking thrillers.

Starring Sydney Sweeney, Amanda Seyfried, and Brandon Sklenar and follows Millie Calloway, who becomes the live-in maid for a wealthy family, but quickly realises all is not well beneath the family’s suburban sheen.

Grossing $401.7million against a reported $35million budget, the film was a slow-burning hit at the box office and earned respectable reviews from critics.

Boasting an impressive 73% on Rotten Tomatoes, the film has been described as a fun throwback to the steamy thrillers of yesteryear, with particular praise offered to Sydney Sweeney and Amanda Seyfried.

Metro’s own Tori Brazer wrote in her 3-star review that the film was ‘a pulpy tongue-in-cheek adaptation of a breezy thriller that will slip down smoothly’.

Although she admitted that ‘putting it up on the big screen does emphasise the more fanciful elements and plot holes.’

Variety’s Owen Gleiberman said it’s ‘a movie of diabolical developments, and that’s what’s captivating about it. That, and Elizabeth Perkins’ droll performance as a mother-in-law from WASP hell.’

Got a story?

If you’ve got a celebrity story, video or pictures get in touch with the Metro.co.uk entertainment team by emailing us celebtips@metro.co.uk, calling 020 3615 2145 or by visiting our Submit Stuff page – we’d love to hear from you.

MORE: The Inbetweeners set to return in unexpected way following TV revival news

MORE: TFI Friday fans slam ‘disastrous’ Chris Evans reboot: ‘I am gutted it’s this bad’

MORE: Horrifying true crime drama about ‘aggressively vile liar’ is free to stream on ITVX

A man was seen to approach a row of shops with a plastic bag containing what was three bottles.

Counter-terror police are leading an investigation into an arson attack on a business on Friday night. A man was seen to approach a row of shops with a plastic bag containing what was later found to be three bottles containing fluid.

He placed the bag next to the building and lit the items inside, but the bottles failed to fully ignite. There was minor damage to the shop front but no injuries were reported.

The man fled the scene in Hendon, north-west London. The Mirror reports that Metropolitan Police officers were called shortly after 10.30pm following reports of the incident.

They said the investigation is being led by Counter Terrorism Policing London, supported by officers from the North West Command Area. However, the force said it is not being treated as a terrorist incident.

A spokesperson said: “Officers are keeping an open mind about the motive behind the attack. No arrests have been made at this time.”

Commander Helen Flanagan, of Counter Terrorism Policing London, said: “At this stage last night’s arson is not being linked to other incidents in the North West London area over the last week or last month’s arson in Golders Green but Counter Terrorism officers are leading due to the similarities of each attack.

“I would ask that anyone with information or footage that could help our investigation gets in touch with police as soon as possible. We will be relentless in our pursuit of those responsible for this and other, similar, hateful acts against London’s communities.”

Detective Chief Superintendent Luke Williams, who leads policing in the area, said: “Since the incident in Golders Green last month we have spoken extensively to community leaders. I understand and appreciate their concerns, and I know this latest incident will add to fears in the community.

“Local officers are working closely with Counter Terrorism Policing to support the investigation. The community can expect to see a heightened police presence in the area. Since last month’s attack in Golders Green, we have stepped up police patrols and vigilance to reassure communities and disrupt offenders.

“This includes armed police patrols as well as deployments of officers from Project Servator, who are specially trained to spot anyone who may be planning or preparing to commit criminal acts.”

Get more Daily Record exclusives by signing up for free to Google’s preferred sources. Click HERE