Labor’s push for militarization, and Keir Starmer has cut the aid budget to support defense spending, which may not be a policy warmly welcomed by many of the party’s core supporters.

But the government hopes to win support for changing mindsets by arguing that investment in defence helps create skilled jobs, especially outside London, such as in Barrow, Devonport, Glasgow and Rosyth.

The Defense Department said this "military Keynesianism" highlighted Sunday morning when ministers announced plans to build six new ammunition plants that would create 1,000 jobs in a timely manner and support 800 jobs.

Defence Secretary John Healey believes that by “transferring funds from overseas development aid funds”, money “will “strengthen the British industrial base, more work in every part of the UK” – an argument that is almost certainly the argument made at the forefront of the polls in his mind.

Fiona Hill, one of three independent members of the government’s strategic defense review team, has long focused on the economic and political impact of the post-industrial decline on Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump.

It reflects her personal experience. Hill grew up in Durham County but moved into a successful career in the U.S. as a national security analyst, noting her father’s advice on where she grew up: “Nothing is here.”

Russia's invasion of Ukraine and Britain's support to help Kief's defense prompted Britain to seek to restore manufacturing forms, so that peace after the Cold War was outdated.

Last year, a deal with Germany paved the way for a revival of gun barrel manufacturing at a site in Telford after a decade of abandonment. Before Monday's strategic defense review, the government once again focused on long-term industrial commitments, this time eventually starting construction of an Aukus nuclear-powered attack submarine from the late 2030s. The Defense Department said the work will be assembled in Barrow and will support 30,000 jobs.

This long-term focus may also help mask the relative shortage of defense in the short term. Currently, the commitment to increase defense spending to 2.5% of GDP in 2027 is easily funded for existing commitments and overspending.

Of course, fresh spending on arms is hardly neutral - it all depends on the purpose of the weapon being used. Despite the possible strong public support for Ukraine, in other cases, arms exports may be controversial.

In May, despite a partial ban on exports announced in September, despite a partial ban on exports, they could use it for violations of international law as part of their ongoing offensive against Gaza, but announced a partial ban on exports in September, with Britain providing Israel with $169 million worth of weapons between October and December.

Critics argue that while state spending will always stimulate the economy and create jobs, defense spending may not be the most effective way. A Greenpeace study looked at economies in Germany, Italy and Spain and concluded that investment in health care, education or green technology is more job and growth than investing in defense.

Sam Perlo-Freeman, who opposes the arms trade movement, said a more honest stance is to "separate security arguments from economic arguments" and to try to justify military investment. But when it is possible to point out new factories and new jobs created due to defense spending, politicians cannot do this.