The cost of conflict is always paid in pounds and pence on the kitchen table. But when the bombing starts in a capital city, the first thing that rises isn't just smoke: it's the price of oil, the cost of a loaf, and the anxiety of families in Bethnal Green and Bolton who are watching the news. Today, we wake to reports that Israeli forces have struck the Lebanese capital in what they describe as a ‘targeted’ operation. The UK Foreign Office has issued a statement urging “restraint” and an end to the cycle of violence.
For the working families in this country, the headlines from the Middle East are not abstract foreign affairs. They are directly connected to the bills piling up on the mantelpiece. Every regional conflict sends shockwaves through global energy markets. We saw it after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. We saw it when the Red Sea shipping lanes were threatened. And we will see it again now: petrol at the pump will nudge up. Heating oil for those not on the gas grid will become a little more dear. The Treasury will have to weigh another round of military spending against the need for social support.
The ‘targeted’ nature of the strike is supposed to reassure. It tells us that the aim is precise, that the intention is to send a message rather than to level a neighbourhood. But precision does not stop the fear. It does not stop the mothers in Beirut from wondering if their children are safe. And it does not stop the citizens of Manchester or Glasgow from feeling the chill of a world where the threat of broader war is once again a real and present danger.
The Foreign Office’s call for restraint is a diplomatic necessity. But for those of us who watch the real economy, restraint is a word that rings hollow. Restraint in military action is one thing. Restraint in domestic spending is another. We have seen a decade of austerity, a pandemic that squeezed the life out of high streets, and now an inflation crisis that has made every trip to the supermarket a stress test. Another overseas crisis means more pressure on the pound, more volatility in stock markets, and more government borrowing to pay for defence. That borrowing will eventually be paid back by the same families who are already struggling to make ends meet.
The trade unions have been vocal about the need for a foreign policy that prioritises peace. They know that the cost of war is borne by the workers who are called to fight or who are left to pick up the pieces at home. The TUC has long argued that for every billion spent on a missile system, there is a hundred million not spent on schools, hospitals, or social care. We are now at a moment where that trade-off is being made again.
Regional inequality will also be a factor. The North East, parts of Yorkshire, and the industrial Midlands have higher concentrations of people on lower incomes. They are more exposed to fuel poverty and food inflation. A spike in energy prices hits them hardest. The government must be prepared to step in with targeted support: an increase in the warm home discount, a freeze on fuel duty, and a real commitment to reducing the cost of living.
We cannot pretend that what happens in Beirut stays in Beirut. The international economy is a web. When one strand snaps, the whole structure trembles. The UK must use its diplomatic weight not just to urge restraint, but to push for a ceasefire and a just political settlement. And at home, the Chancellor must be ready to protect the most vulnerable from the fallout. The working people of this country have already given too much. They cannot be asked to pay for another war with their dwindling savings and their frayed nerves.
