John Healey’s resignation over defence spending was one of the final nails in Keir Starmer’s coffin.
The former defence secretary felt the former prime minister had been unable to commit the resources necessary to confront Russia’s growing threat, conflict in the Middle East and other challenges, and secure the UK’s leading position within Nato.
Andy Burnham has since inherited a defence spending plan that found an extra £1.5 billion in response to Healey’s complaints, bringing the total to £298 billion over the next four years. But that means cuts to public spending elsewhere, and it still won’t meet government and Nato targets.
Burnham is resisting calls for further cuts in welfare spending, but how will he and Healey, now Chancellor, fund Labour’s commitments, what kit will it pay for, and is there another way to secure the UK’s security?
Background
Defence spending increased during the Cold War, dropped when the Berlin Wall fell, grew again when the UK was involved in the Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts, and then fell sharply once more during the austerity years – by 22 per cent from 2009/10 to 2016/17. Increases since then mean it’s now above 2010 levels, and the UK meets its current commitment to Nato of spending 2 per cent of GDP on defence.
But the UK has a “Nato-first” strategy and Nato –under pressure from President Trump to do more on European security – has upped its core spending target to 3.5 per cent of GDP by 2035. The Labour government inherited procurement disasters, equipment shortages, a recruitment and morale crisis within the armed services, and a delay in renewing its Trident nuclear deterrent, according to Healey’s short-lived successor as defence secretary, Dan Jarvis.
July’s Defence Investment Plan is intended to create “war fighting readiness” from a “more lethal, integrated force”. That means drones, which have emerged as the most effective frontline weapons in conflicts from Ukraine to Africa, and also AI-guided targeting systems, with all the new ethical questions they provoke. But it also includes more prosaic measures such as boosting munitions stockpiles, building combat vessels and investing in barracks, all of which ministers say is already providing a jobs and growth dividend.
Some flesh on the bones came in Healey’s speech to the Labour conference yesterday when he promised £6 billion of contracts for British shipyards to build docks at Faslane to maintain nuclear submarines.
Mark Rutte, Nato secretary-general, called the Defence Industrial Plan a “good step” towards its 3.5 per cent target. So too did defence industry trade association ADS Group. Matthew Savill, director of military services at defence and security think tank RUSI, called it a “bold bet on technological solutions with no margin for error if procurement is not speedy and implementation rapid”. Unions including the GMB and Unite welcomed the jobs it could bring, although others oppose increased defence spending.
We need more buck for the bang
The Starmer government said it would fund some of the increases in the Defence Investment Plan through a 1 per cent cut in other departments’ capital spending, with additional savings from road building and £2 billion from the Net Zero budget. The row over where the rest is going to come from will only intensify in the lead-up to the Budget on 28 October.
But the Budget won’t contain details of Healey’s own bigger target, expressed previously, of a 3 per cent spending rise by 2030. Instead, decisions on that and a pathway to the Nato 3.5 per cent target will be pushed back to next year’s Treasury spending review.
At Prime Minister’s Questions a fortnight ago, Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch asked whether Burnham was “unable” or “just unwilling” to meet the 2030 target. Burnham replied: “This chancellor of all chancellors will be willing to provide that funding to our armed forces.”
Rutte called last week for the UK’s spending review to contain a “credible path” towards 3.5 per cent. But Burnham is resisting calls for it to be paid out of welfare cuts. In April, Lord George Robertson, the former Labour defence secretary and Nato secretary-general who led last year’s Strategic Defence Review, warned the government of “corrosive complacency” over national security. “We cannot defend Britain with an ever-expanding welfare budget,” said Robertson who, like many former politicians and government officials, has links to the defence industry.
Badenoch continued the attack on welfare spending at PMQs, pushing plans to reimpose the two-child benefit cap, cut housing benefit and remove the VAT exemption for Motability vehicles. Burnham denied there was a consensus for housing benefit cuts to fund defence, saying it would create unprecedented levels of homelessness.
“I say to the right honourable Lady that, yes, we do everything to support our national security, but it cannot come at the expense of social security. Having strong national security also depends on resilience in our communities. We on the Labour benches will not be forced to choose between the two.”
What people are saying
“We have got to make the case for more defence investment spending, but what we should not do within the process is allow a distraction from making sure we live within our means.” - Defence secretary Wes Streeting
“The spending review is next year… The threats are now. Argentina is threatening the Falklands – now. Russia is threatening us in the North Sea – now.” - Kemi Badenoch, leader of the opposition
“All three main UK parties have to accept that at various points over the last 15 years at least, we’ve all taken decisions that were reducing our defence expenditure. We now have to find ways of stepping back up to the plate.” -Baroness Smith of Newnham, Lib Dem defence spokesperson
Is there an alternative?
Last year CND published the Alternative Defence Review, arguing that the UK’s militarised foreign policy risked worsening global conflict, the climate crisis and domestic inequality. It questioned the assumptions of the UK’s nuclear deterrent, its Nato-first defence policy and the AUKUS military pact between Australia, the UK and the US to build nuclear-powered submarines.
Noting that war in Ukraine is deepening despite the West’s support, the Alternative Defence Review’s authors called for a reduction in military spending, an immediate halt to arms exports to countries involved in armed conflict or human rights abuses, including Israel and Gulf states, and transitional funding to move workers and communities out of defence-dependent jobs.
“Our review calls for a shift toward a significantly demilitarised defence strategy rooted in human security and common security – prioritising diplomacy, global co-operation, conflict prevention and investment in health, education, climate resilience, social care, and the creation of well-paid, secure, unionised and socially useful jobs.”
Ian Davis, founder of Nato Watch and associate senior fellow at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, acknowledged Russia’s threats and the need for the UK to play its part in European defence, but warned against writing a “blank cheque” for Nato and sidelining the diplomacy that might bring more security for Ukraine and elsewhere.
“Once military spending becomes the main political signal, the result is self-justifying: more threat means more spending, more spending means more contracts, more contracts mean more momentum for still more spending.”
Paul Rogers, emeritus professor of peace studies at Bradford University, warned Burnham against “delusions of imperial grandeur even half a century after the end of empire”, involving costly aircraft carriers and nuclear arsenals.
Confronting the West’s recent failed wars and accelerating climate breakdown are “essential if the UK is to have a rational approach to international security, but neither is remotely given the space it deserves”. ■
About the author: Kevin Gopal is a Manchester-based journalist who has returned to freelancing after editing Big Issue North from 2007 until its closure in 2023. He writes regularly for The Lead to untangle the issues facing the UK and also reporting on social justice and other issues across the North of England as part of our award-winning The Lead Local titles.
About The Lead Untangles: In an era where misinformation is actively and deliberately used by elected politicians and where advocates and opposers of beliefs state their point of view as fact, sometimes the most useful tool reporters have is to help readers make sense of the world. If there is something you’d like us to untangle, email ed@thelead.uk and you can see every edition of The Lead Untangles so far.
👫Found this edition of The Lead Untangles useful? Share this story with your friends, family and colleagues to help us reach more people with our independent journalism, always with a focus on people, policy and place.
Our Zoe is at Labour party conference this week and will be bringing you her verdict, later this week, on what she’s heard and seen during the speeches and events in Liverpool. Make sure you’re subscribed to receive it first.
We must have defence in a world where despots launch armed conflicts. But do we need nuclear weapons to do so? Do we really need aircraft carriers when our shores can be defended by aircraft or drones based on land? Scrapping them would be a huge saving. Also - even the Lead seems to assume the neoliberal doctrine of 'balancing the books', 'living within our means', 'fiscal rules' and bowing to the bond market. It is this doctrine which produced 14 years of austerity which has only succeeded in bringing the country to its knees. It is time to look at other economic theories that work better for the workers of this country. If we insist on sticking to these holy icons, then at least balance the books by taxing unearned income, capital gains and such, closing tax loopholes for international corporations and increasing tax on the rich in general.