Thousands of military families across the UK are set to benefit from over £1.5 billion in new funding for Armed Forces housing, as part of the upcoming Strategic Defence Review (SDR).
The record investment will support urgent repairs, new construction, and long-term renewal of service accommodation across the UK, bringing total housing spending this Parliament to more than £7 billion. The move follows the launch of the Defence Consumer Charter and the landmark decision to bring 36,347 military homes back into public ownership.
Defence Secretary John Healey MP said:
“Our Armed Forces personnel make extraordinary sacrifices to serve our country. For too long, many military families have lived in sub-standard homes, but this government is taking decisive action to fix the dire state of military accommodation and ensure that our heroes and their loved ones live in the homes they deserve.”
The new funding will address longstanding issues in service family accommodation, including unreliable boilers, leaking roofs, and damp or mould. It will also support the development of new housing, both for families and single personnel, on surplus Ministry of Defence land.
Immediate investment will target 1,000 homes in most urgent need of repair, under the terms of the new Consumer Charter.
The Charter introduces essential rights for service families, including clearer housing standards, access to property information, a named housing officer, better maintenance systems, and a strengthened complaints process.
The SDR, expected to be published in the coming days, sets out a long-term vision for British defence, rooted in military readiness, industrial resilience, and personnel support. It follows the Government’s decision to raise defence spending to 2.5% of GDP and to increase Armed Forces pay in real terms for a second year running.
John Healey added:
“We are investing and acting fast to fix forces housing, renew the nation’s contract with those who serve, and deliver on our Plan for Change.”
Expect lots of infra improvements in the SDR, esp those which will then result in reduced running costs (e.g. insulation, solar & heat pumps for buildings and accommodation, use of AI to reduce manning costs for services etc). Also, more spending in dual-use areas like space and high-tech investments but also ways where a growing defence budget will help fund other areas under strain (like payments to schools for hosting CCF units, contracts to maintain both defence and other infra etc).
OT/ SDR to be released on Monday – get ready for a fun week!
Cuts , cuts and more cuts. Unless Big surprise.
It’s going to be a big surprise..from the mood music they have essentially constructed it for 3% by 2029/30 to ensure its in like with what NATO are going to sign off.. 3.5% by 2032 and an extra 1.5% on wider defence aligned infrastructure.
I think it’ll be better than people expect, but not as good as that. Healey says 3% in next parliament, so that could be mid 2030s. Still, the buzz from Westminster and Whitehall is that the government is essentially going to be the ‘army and NHS, with everything bolted on’.
I honestly think Healey is underselling it, because they don’t think most people will be happy with 3% going to defence in this decade. Robinson has come out and said the SDR has been rewritten with an assumption of 3% by 2029/30..and if you read between the lines even Healey has said..it’s been written so if we get to 3% before then it just speeds everything up.. essentially he knows NATO will require 3.5% +1.5% by 2032 but he’s not saying it yet due to public backlash… remember the British public had 30 years of being told their was no existential threat and it’s ok to cut… now the government needs to warm the public up to Cold War levels of spending….
Healey said yesterday it would be 3% by 2034. So quite some way off getting to 3.5% :/
Yes but he also said it could be sooner as the SDR has been designed to move to 3% sooner..infact Robinson the author stated it was written with an assumption around 3% by 2029/30… and we know NATO is moving the way it’s moving.. so I will lay good money down that come 25/26 of June the UK will sign on the line for 3.5% +1.5% by 3032 and then Healey will announce that they “have no choice but to move to 3% by 2030 ready for the 2032 requirement”..you have to remember most of the British public are not happy we are spending more on defence..infact if Labour turned around off their own back and said “ guesss what guys we are going to spend 3% by 2030” the conservatives, libdems, left wing element of Labour, Green Party and Scottish Nationalists would all lay straight into them..and most of the public would be livid.. significant defence spending while cutting benefits is NOT a vote winner..and they will move using the cover of we have to because of NATO..that will essentially quite all the other parties and noise down.
Replying here as it wouldn’t let me reply to your response
To the funding – I agree, the way Healey and Starmer are both ‘pregnant pausing’ and “absolutely confident” to questions about funding commitments make me think they are envisioning a different fiscal/political landscape further down the line, but just can’t say it now because they have no solid budget figures to point to, and/or can’t mention the cuts they have already planned for in the case that the coffers aren’t faring better, because of the politics of announcing it now. Give the public 6-12 months to adjust to the new world with constant headlines about Europe rearming, Russian threats, Iranian nuclear proliferation, India Pakistan tensions, etc and they’ll begrudgingly accept cuts or tax rises. At least they reckon it won’t be political suicide by then. If we’re lucky the economy might be walking steadily by 2030 too – infrastructure investment and DI reforms won’t hurt the growth agenda, and despite strong headwinds the economy has outdone a few key predictions recently. Wouldn’t want to get hopeful now, but you never know..
What cuts? Seriously, nothing left to cut, unless we want to walk away from some of the main pillers of our defence?
MBT’s?
Aircraft Carriers?
Royal Marines?
One of the three…
I personally think ( and hope) that the plugs been popped back in the bath and the funding taps are slowly being turned back on after 35 years of draining.
Amalgamate the Royals and Paras into the Airborne Commandos, move lympstone to Catterick, and rationalise the RM into the Army as the amount of duplication that we have for two small battalions is ridiculous.
Easy cut right there.
I wouldn’t want to try selling that to either mob Dern! You might have to move and change your name!
The top brass would probably argue that both are increasingly considered second tier SF assets these days and are closely cooperating via ‘parallel’ command structures under that same umbrella.
Perhaps a Unified Command element would be a good plan, one would hope the planning staff of both organisations wouldn’t start knocking lumps out of each other, just use different pubs LOL
With the exception of 1 Para, which is already amalgamated with Royals into SFSG (and they don’t knock the shit out of each other so proof of concept), the Paras certainly aren’t viewed as tier 2 SF, that’s just something they spin as they get their hackles up about Rangers. 16AA is a conventional force, high readyness yes, well trained, yes, but a conventional force. The closest they come to Non-conventional taskings is when the Pathfinders are borrowed.
Royals are in a identity crisis and neither fish nor fowl, unable to commit to either being a conventional force that or a tier two unit, and so have this weird limbo. I think they’ll work it out, and if funding becomes more available I suspect 3 Cmdo will become a thing again and they’ll move away from the Tier 2 stuff (which is mostly I think a survival reflex).
Unifying the command element wouldn’t make much sense, as that would realistically just mean permanently subordinating 2 Royal Marine Commando’s to 1 UK Division, you’d really need to unify a lot of the training and doctrinal stuff behind the scenes.
Yes but everyone know the British army has a pathological aversion to practicing anything related to boats.. and if the RM was merged with the army the first thing the army would do is take all their boats away.
AAC Apaches and ground crews have trained on POW; note the delay and ‘reconfiguration’ of NMH; MRSS thinking and the loss of LPDs. Reading the Runes I would say you are spot on with your Airborne Commandos thinking. The commando Merlins would go to the AAC and paired up with their existing Wildcats and Apaches. Job done.
@Jonathan except for the British Army Navy (Aka 17 Port and Maritime Regiment RLC), that has boats. I could be snarky and joke that the RN is taking away all of the RM’s boats anyway 😛
Good news that defence housing is being upgraded. It a disgrace that anyone should live in a moldy home, but expecting our service people to service overseas putting themselves in harms way to keep us save while their families are living in conditions that could damage their health is disgusting. ‘Bout time this was put right, I just hope they throw the book at the company that ran the properties down.
OT (SDR)
The BBC are quoting and TImes, who are quoting Healey (confused yet! 🙂 ) that defence spending will definitely reach 3% by 2034 which is a change in tone given that it was an “ambition” to reach 3% by the end of the next parliament.
The question is how does that fit in with the reported US demand that eNATO countries spend a minimum of 3.5% on core defence and 1.5% on cyber, security and defence intelligence type stuff.!?
Will be interesting to see how the SDR goes down with NATO (inc. Washington).
Cheers CR
That’s the politician being a bit playing down..Robinson was on record saying the defence review is built around an assumption of 3% for 2029/30.. and it’s now an open secret every NATO nation apart from Spain has signed up to 3.5% by 2032 and an extra 1.5% defence aligned spend
The minister is being coy as the government don’t want to piss the public off by saying they are going to 3% by the end of the parliament ( because the conservatives will go..and how are you getting that and the left will go…your not cutting anything else to get get it).
But other mood music is that essentially every other department than the health and defence are getting slashed and burnt to support the new NATO target and the NHS.
Hi Jonathan,
Just read a BBC In Depth article. It takes a slightly less optimistic view, but interestingly the figures in that article do not contradict your suggestion. For example, the 25% was originally slated for 2029 has been brought forward to 2027. Not only that but Healey is talking about ‘at least’ 3% by 2034, so plenty of wriggle room to bring spending up higher if the threat continues to develop for the worse and the US piles on the pressure.
I’ll take two years to increase defence from up to 2.5%.
Just to temper everyone’s expectations, the BBC article indicated that we won’t find out about kit orders until the early autumn…
Cheers CR
Yes it’s all in the sub text… essentially they have made it clear they are laying the pathway for the NATO 3.5% announcement.. without coming out and saying they will spend 3.5%.. its one of the first times I’ve seen a government essentially set a path of increased spending but be evasive about it so they cannot be attacked about doing it… says a lot about the post “end of history and last man “ west in that the government clearly feel the voting public and opposition parties would essentially object on principle to a 3.5% defence target.
Fingers crossed mate.
I’ll be having a read of the SDR on Monday / Tuesday…
Cheers CR
I think it’s vital that housing is being improved but that’s hardly a subject for a Strategic Defence Review.
I’m hoping the rest is not so low bar.
I suspect this is something we will see more of due to the open secret around where nato minimum defence spending will go to, which is 3.5% + 1.5% defence aligned spending..and this is clearly defence aligned..but it’s also housing stock and is a shot in the arm for house building, making housing more energy efficient.. supporting house building and improvements industries… essentially because of that 1.5% we will see a massive amount of UK infrastructure projects that are defence aligned… but benefit the wider economy and infrastructure as well…
This would play in nicely with that new NATO requirement of 1.5% GDP defence aligned spending than its an open secret everyone in NATO is signing up to.
It’s also vital for recruitment and retention for an expanded armed forces and also good as an economic stimulus for the nation… what people sometimes forget is that a massive boost in defence infrastructure is a great shot in the arm for an economy.. it’s just like a dose of amphetamines.. gets it going but if you take to much for to long it has nasty side effects.
Seriously doubt there will be sustained objections across NATO re the 1.5% of GDP goal for associated defence investment. A significant proportion of spending will be in planned improvements in public infrastructure, including: any dual use airports (aerodromes), ports, railroad networks, roadway (highway) network by whatever name (Autobahn, Interstate Highway system, etc.). Predict nearly universal across the NATO political spectrum for significant public works improvement programmes. Alternatively, the goal of spending 3.5% of GDP on strictly defence related programmes across ENATO will elicit significant political opposition in most non-border countries. The same countries which recognize and acknowledge the true current threat level (Baltic states, Poland, probably the Nordic countries, possibly select other countries) will be willing to achieve and/or maintain the 3.5% of GDP goal of military investment. Other ENATO countries? Quite frankly, a long-term open question…🤔🤞
Predict nearly universal (approval/implementation)…🙄
I really hope we catch up with Poland’s way of thinking sooner than later 👍
Apparently the only NATO country to hold an objection is Spain and apparently Spain is getting a lot of … or else calls from every other nato nation.. I suspect what will happen is Spain will get an unwritten.. we will lay off forcing it on you if you sign the line for the pledge..Spain knows it’s on thin ice with the rest of the EU if it essentially forces a break in NATO by not signing a pledge it does not in law need to abide by…remember the NATO floor is actually a framework guide and pledge not a specific treaty requirement.. Spain never even can close to 2% after 10 years… so it will told to wind its neck in..
Actually, the private political intent in many ENATO capitals, and evidently Canada as well, may well be to sign the pledge for increased defence spending, w/ the intent to renegotiate both level of spending and the timetable for implementation, once Trump departs office. Intriguing, but not surprising, that perception and response to perceived CRINK threat is almost perfectly correlated w/ physical distance from Beijing, Moscow, Tehran and Pyongyang, and each respective ENATO capital. This attitude and action can probably be characterized as simply a function of normal human behavior. The only potential flaw in the putative ENATO plan would be the CRINKs’ real world behavior during the interim period.
In the end many NATO nations have not ever hit the agreed target
NATO nations come on four basic types from best to worst
1) not sitting next to an enemy but still paying their way.
2) sitting next to an enemy and so high risk but paying their way.
3) not sitting next to an enemy and refusing to pay their way ( Spain, Canada)
4) sitting next to or close to an enemy and refusing to pay their way.
5) activity supporting an enemy or having a completely different geopolitical agenda than NATO ( there are two nations that do that).
Essentially you want more of 1-2, you can cope with a few of 3 and you don’t want any of 4-5 . but nato has historically had a lot of 3-4 and now also has some 5s
Happy for 3.5% as long as not a penny goes to the US.
A lot will go to the US but I just hope we start building up here as much as possible, it’ getting to a point where China might think it has the advantage in a fight we can’t have that long to go now surely and of course that starts so do Russia I would imagine and I personally don’t think all of NATO would fight so the more we sort ourselves out now the better.
Nothing to the US needs to become a policy decision. Trump will always raise the % of GDP he thinks NATO should pay as long as he thinks that that money is going into his pockets.
The US defence secretary speech to the pacific nations was interesting.. basically he told Europe to piss off out of the pacific and stop trying to make alliances between Europe and the pacific democracies as that was the US job.. and he then told the pacific democracies to up their defence spending to 5% and that the US was ready and able to start supply them with arms… he then when on to say China was going to start a war and the US would not back away… essentially he told the liberal democracies across the globe to stay in their own back yards.. scared them all by upping the threat a bit, told them they needed to spend a load more on defence and buy US kit… it was all a bit repulsive really.
I read recently that the US is putting pressure on Japan to switch from GCAP to F-47. Furthermore, Israel are moaning about the possibility of Saudi joining the program…
Frankly, the US has always wanted to dominate the Pacific, and actually tried to block the UK from returning to Pacific Region at the end of WW2. However, they are not going about things particularly well. They have been cutting their financial support to South Korea, for example, which might not be that unreasonable in of itself given the economic power of modern South Korea, but they just stopped it with no or little warning a la the import tariffs.
In short, the US seem to be wanting to treat the western Pacific rim countries as client states. As such the US are not going to appreciate the UK developing a close relationship with Japan or anyone else for that matter and I suspect that the western Pacific Rim states are not going to appreciate being dictated to by Washington. On the other hand Washington has significant military capabilities that they need to stand off the Chinese. Quite the quandary Seoul, Tokyo, etc.?
Hopefully we can keep things moving forward with Japan on GCAP.
Cheers CR
At CR, it’s my understanding that at present the Japanese are as pissed of with the US as its ever been..that’s the political class and the people on the street.. one thing you don’t do with the Japanese is push them and they are not a particularly forgiving bunch if they think they are being played publicly, you can be dirty and play hard in private, but you don’t humiliate Japan or the Japanese in public and get away with it… mentsu ( face) is profoundly important to the Japanese… a few generations ago it was life and death..now it’s just never forgotten or forgiven… trump and the U.S. administration have essentially insulted Japan with their tatemae ( outward behaviour)… essentially US Japanese relations are in the toilet and will say there until trump and his administration have gone and the next administration have done some serious crawling.
Re: Face / Japan.
I lived in Japan for a short while as a kid some decades ago now and yes they have a strict and ancient honour code. Not an unusual cultural trait in that part of the world, China is seeking readdress / revenge for two hundred years of ‘shame’…
The thing about honour codes is that they also tend to be closely integrated into a class system, which might explain why the British and the Japanese got on so well during the late 19th and early 20th centuries and again now in the early 21st century.
If as you say the Japanese are really that pissed off with the US, and I can well imagine that they are, then I suspect that the old school tie network of certain sectors of British society might actually be useful in developing and maintaining our relationship with Japan. Also, Japan is still buying lots of stuff from the US so has that hand to play if it wants to. Of course the US could also play tough on the supply side..! We are in very odd territory at the moment and Trump loves to be in the headlines.
Frankly, I have long thought the we Brits are a bit of an odd bunch really. Comes from being an island nation sat off the coast of a major continent, I think. As such we and the Japanese have a lot in common, geopolitically and culturally (class structure, Royal Families, etc.), we also have our differences obviously, but long story short I think we could develop a very close relationship with Japan based on similar world views, but the US will work to undermine it just as they did in the 1920’s.
When it comes to the Europeans trying to build relationships in the Far East I think the US will find France, in particular, will be a prickly customer given that there are parts of the French Republic actually in the Far East. (This will be one circumstance where I will be cheering the French on, quietly of course.) I also think the EU will be seeking to build its own relationships, existing and new, in the Far East. It has to if it wants to maintain and develop its economic position globally, especially if the US is going to try and divide the world up into US and non US regions of influence.
Finally, I think the UK joining the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) and our trade deal with India might yet turn out to be good moves with significant geopolitical impacts. We need those relationships and we will need to work at them to make them grow and develop to mutual benefit.
The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office are going to be very busy in the years to come I think.
Cheers CR
Should be taking the money off paying foreigners hotel fees that would give a bloody lot more money to make sure housing is sorted right and even build more, we need a totally different way of thinking in this country,
Actually I’m a bit puzzled that the SDR is published before the National Security Strategy (due later in June). I would have thought the NSS forms the context for the SDR; justifying for example an ‘Arctic’ tilt, which seems to be a news item this week.
To be honest I’m very very surprised it’s being published before the NATO summit as I think that will herald in a profound change…
Might explain the wriggle room in the language being used by UK ministers at the moment…
Cheers CR
Yes I think it does.. essentially they are not going to say anything that will back them into a corner around reversing anything.. so the SDR is essentially NATO new floor agnostic and the language very open.. 2.5% for 27… then at least 3% by 2034 at the latest.. is essentially code for whatever we have to sign up for on the 25/26 of June..
Lots of investment in infrastructure and industrial capacity being announced.. we now know that stormshadow is again being built in the Uk..so we are actively producing new long range air launched cruise missiles.. and 6 new munitions factories will be funded ( another 1.5billion) and that the UK will be purchasing an arsenal of 7000 long range weapons….spending 6 billion on munitions in this Parliament… that’s a shed load of war stock and hurt.
Poland is buying JASSM for its F-16s. LM are developing an ER version by using a more economical turbofan engine c.f. Taurus.
We should do the same with Storm Shadow. Kyiv to Moscow as the crow flies about 500miles.