The major political parties in the UK have outlined their defence policies in their manifestos, highlighting their strategies for national security, military spending, and support for the armed forces.

Here, we provide an objective comparison of the defence policies of Labour, the Conservatives, the SNP, Reform UK, and the Liberal Democrats, along with quotes from their manifestos.

Here’s a quick summary before we get into it.

  • Labour: Committed to spending 2.5% of GDP on defence, maintaining strong ties with NATO, and supporting Ukraine with fast-tracked military aid.
  • Conservative: Aim for 2.5% of GDP on defence by 2030, enhancing support for NATO and Ukraine, and focusing on procurement reforms.
  • SNP: Opposing nuclear weapons, focusing on conventional defence, and advocating for veterans’ welfare and increased transparency.
  • Reform UK: Increasing defence spending to 3% of GDP within six years, supporting NATO, and improving pay and conditions for armed forces personnel.
  • Liberal Democrats: Increasing defence spending each year, supporting NATO and nuclear deterrence, and enhancing cooperation with European allies.

Now, let’s begin.

Labour Party

Spending: Labour commits to spending 2.5% of GDP on defence as soon as possible.

  • Quote: “Labour is committed to spending 2.5% of GDP on defence as soon as we can, securing our country’s future, and getting the best value for money for British taxpayers.”

NATO and Nuclear Deterrent: Strong commitment to NATO and maintaining the UK’s nuclear deterrent.

  • Quote: “Maintain an unshakeable commitment to NATO and our nuclear deterrent.”

Strategic Defence Review: A comprehensive review in the first year to assess the state of the armed forces and future needs.

  • Quote: “Conduct a Strategic Defence Review in our first year in government to fully understand the state of our Armed Forces, the nature of threats we face and the capabilities needed.”

Morale and Living Conditions: Plans to improve service accommodation and establish an Armed Forces Commissioner to advocate for personnel.

  • Quote: “Improve morale by tackling the poor state of service accommodation and establish an Armed Forces Commissioner as a strong independent voice to improve service life.”

Procurement: A strategic approach to boost British industry and ensure better value for money.

  • Quote: “Take a more strategic approach to procurement; boosting British industry, reinforcing national resilience, and strengthening NATO.”

Support for Ukraine: Strong support for Ukraine, with plans to fast-track military aid and support NATO membership for Ukraine.

  • Quote: “Labour has an iron-clad commitment to support Ukraine. We will fast-track military support and work with the Government in Kyiv to isolate Russia diplomatically and boost Ukraine’s industrial production.”

Veterans: Focused on improving conditions for service personnel and veterans.

  • Quote: “We will also legislate to establish an independent Armed Forces Commissioner, to champion the interests of our service personnel.”

Global Security: Emphasises strategic decisions and stability in military leadership.

  • Quote: “We will establish a Military Strategic Headquarters during week one of a Labour government.”

Conservative Party

Spending: Aim to reach 2.5% of GDP on defence by 2030 with a fully funded plan.

  • Quote: “We will hit 2.5% of GDP on defence in 2030 with our fully funded plan.”

NATO and Nuclear Deterrent: Promote a campaign for all NATO allies to spend 2.5% of GDP on defence by 2030 and support Trident.

  • Quote: “If all NATO partners spent 2.5% of GDP on defence, our collective spending would increase by over £140 billion.”

Strategic Defence Review: Adapt to lessons from the war in Ukraine.

  • Quote: “We will adapt to the lessons from the war in Ukraine which showed us it is vital to be able to replenish equipment quickly and that the acceleration of disruptive technologies is changing the character of warfare.”

Morale and Living Conditions: Improving quality and support for military families.

  • Quote: “We will improve Service Family Accommodation, improving quality and ensuring military families get the support they deserve.”

Procurement: Integrated Procurement Model to streamline and improve defence procurement.

  • Quote: “By delivering our new Integrated Procurement Model, we will make defence procurement faster, smarter and more joined up.”

Support for Ukraine: Strong stance on supporting Ukraine and countering threats from Russia.

  • Quote: “We have led the world in support of Ukraine against Putin’s aggression, as the first European country to mobilise lethal aid and to send Western tanks and long-range missiles.”

Veterans: Establishment of an Office for Veterans Affairs and various measures to support veterans’ transition to civilian life.

  • Quote: “We are proud to have created the United Kingdom’s first Office for Veterans Affairs, run by a dedicated Minister who attends Cabinet.”

Global Security: Strong emphasis on standing up to authoritarian states and enhancing international security.

  • Quote: “We must be prepared to tackle the axis of authoritarian states and hostile actors who are working together to threaten international security.”

SNP (Scottish National Party)

Spending: Opposes spending on nuclear weapons and focuses on conventional defence and public services.

  • Quote: “Scrap Trident and invest the billions spent funding these immoral weapons in public services, like our NHS and schools and adequately funding conventional defence.”

NATO and Nuclear Deterrent: Opposes Trident and nuclear weapons, supporting disarmament.

  • Quote: “The SNP has never and will never support the retention or renewal of Trident, and will press the UK government to meet their international obligations on nuclear disarmament.”

Strategic Defence Review: Focus on non-nuclear strategies to strengthen security.

  • Quote: “Strengthen Scotland’s security by pushing the UK to focus on countering disinformation and misinformation.”

Morale and Living Conditions: Advocates for improved support and inclusion for armed forces personnel and veterans.

  • Quote: “Prioritise the needs of our Armed Forces and Veterans community.”

Procurement: Focuses on transparency and efficiency in defence spending.

  • Quote: “Strengthen the ability of the UK to rebound and rebuild from the aftermath of a shock or crisis.”

Support for Ukraine: Strong support for Ukraine and pressing the UK government for effective sanctions against Russia.

  • Quote: “Stand by Ukraine and continue to strongly oppose the Russian invasion.”

Veterans: Advocates for better employment, social inclusion, and health support for veterans.

  • Quote: “We believe it is vital that the UK Government prioritise employment, social inclusion, health and wellbeing for veterans and their families.”

Global Security: Focuses on non-nuclear approaches and strengthening resilience against modern threats.

  • Quote: “Better protecting national critical infrastructure, improving supply chain resilience and strengthening the ability of the UK to rebound and rebuild from the aftermath of a shock or crisis.”
Image Owain.davies, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons.

Reform UK

Spending: Increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by year 3, and 3% within six years.

  • Quote: “Increase Defence Spending to 2.5% of National GDP by year 3, then 3% within 6 years.”

NATO and Nuclear Deterrent: Strong support for NATO and increasing defence capabilities. Trident is not mentioned.

  • Quote: “This will increase the size and capacity of our armed forces and ensure our lead role in NATO.”

Strategic Defence Review: Emphasis on listening to front-line soldiers for procurement needs.

  • Quote: “The Ministry of Defence must listen to soldiers on the front line and ensure they get the equipment they need.”

Morale and Living Conditions: Urgent pay review to increase armed forces’ pay and improve conditions.

  • Quote: “Increase basic pay across our armed forces to boost recruitment and retention.”

Procurement: Establishment of a Joint Acquisition Corp for better procurement processes.

  • Quote: “Launch a Joint Acquisition Corp to ensure world class procurement.”

Support for Ukraine: Support for Ukraine as part of a broader strategy to boost defence.

  • Quote: “Support for Ukraine and our lead role in NATO.”

Veterans: Creation of a dedicated ministerial department for veterans.

  • Quote: “A properly funded and resourced whole department is essential to guarantee no veteran goes without and that our former servicemen and women play a leading role in our society and economy.”

Global Security: Focus on regenerating Britain’s defence manufacturing and technology.

  • Quote: “Introduce incentives and tax breaks to boost the UK defence industry.”

Liberal Democrats

Spending: Increase defence spending each year, aiming for at least 2.5% of GDP.

  • Quote: “Maintaining the UK’s support for NATO, and accordingly increasing defence spending in every year of the Parliament, with an ambition to spend at least 2.5% of GDP on defence.”

NATO and Nuclear Deterrent: Maintain support for NATO and pursue global nuclear disarmament.

  • Quote: “Maintaining the UK’s nuclear deterrent with four submarines providing continuous at-sea deterrence, while pursuing multilateral global disarmament.”

Strategic Defence Review: Focus on long-term strategies and legal frameworks for military action.

  • Quote: “Legislate to ensure there is a parliamentary vote before engaging in military action, and support intervention only when there is a clear legal or humanitarian case.”

Morale and Living Conditions: Strengthen the Armed Forces Covenant and improve housing.

  • Quote: “Improving the standard of Ministry of Defence housing, including by reviewing maintenance contracts.”

Procurement: Tackle procurement issues and support innovative defence technologies.

  • Quote: “Tackle long-standing problems in defence procurement, including by ensuring that procurement is part of a comprehensive industrial strategy.”

Support for Ukraine: Maintain strong support for Ukraine and enhance cooperation with European allies.

  • Quote: “It is time for the UK to lead within Europe on security, working closely with our democratic European allies so that we can support Ukraine, and each other, during peace and war.”

Veterans: Improve support for veterans and their families.

  • Quote: “Strengthening the Armed Forces Covenant by placing a legal duty on the Defence Secretary and government departments to give it due regard.”

Global Security: Enhance international cooperation and develop innovative defence technologies.

  • Quote: “Work collaboratively with our democratic European partners and promote security, including through deterrence.”

Conclusion

The defence policies of the UK’s major political parties reflect differing priorities and strategies. Labour and the Conservatives both pledge significant defence spending and strong support for NATO but differ in their approaches to procurement and veterans’ support.

The SNP focuses on nuclear disarmament and veterans’ welfare, while Reform UK emphasises increased spending and pay for armed forces personnel. The Liberal Democrats advocate for reversing troop cuts and enhancing international cooperation.

Voters should consider these differences carefully when deciding which party’s defence policies align best with their views on national security and military support.

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

77 COMMENTS

      • Not quite true. Guy Fawke’s approach simply to blow up Parliament was treason even by today’s standard. No foreign power necessary.

        • Slightly different though..if guy Fawkes had simply cut the army it would not have been treason..unless there was a letter from the pope saying “ Guy mate could you cut the army, Spain wants to invade”.

          • Jonathan the foreign power bit is not essential for treason. Plotting to kill the monarch is treason as is having sex with the Queen. None of them involve foreign powers.

          • Hi Mark we are talking about the specific action of cutting spending to the armed forces…that is not an act of treason…but instead a political decision..but if the person doing the cutting was found to be doing as a maleficent act at the behest of a foreign power and there was evidence..then it moves from a political decision you may not agree with to an act of treason.

          • Firstly in our system of Government one person cannot do anything very much. Secondly one day, maybe, world peace might break out (not very likely I know) but if it did and countries encouraged other countries to scrap their militaries then that I don’t think would be treasonous.

            However, yes if one person tried to subvert the will of the people by removing our defences that might be treason. If however we have elected a bunch of id**ts as representatives and they chuck away our weapons that’s our own silly fault.

    • No it might be unwise even stupid but anything the elected Government does must by definition be the will of the people. God help us.

  4. Only one party committing to 3% gdp on defence in a timeframe. That’s probably the right figure if AUKUS and GCAP are to get the proper funding required. Shocking state of affairs!!!

  5. I think the relative wording on 2.5% for Labour and the Tories is misleading. The summary states:

    Labour: Committed to spending 2.5% of GDP on defenceConservative: Aim for 2.5% of GDP on defence by 2030But in reality the Tories are the ones who have committed to 2.5% and it is Labour who have said they’ll aim for it ‘if economic conditions allow’.

    Starmer has made so many other unfunded promises that there is no way that his ‘aim’ for 2.5% on defence will be achieved before 2030.

    • Bollocks. Should any Party have made unfunded commitments it is the Cons.

      Labour have been lured into a Con trap of funding however, on this one, they swerved and rightly so. The Cons have no credibility.

      • Wrong. No unfunded commitments in defence. The latest reported 10 year equipment black hole only arises because the RN have included costs of projects not yet designed never mind authorized- T32, T83, MRSS, FAD. Read the NAO report on this.

        • Cons have new underfunded commitments in Defence over the next parliament. They want to spend money on munitions and stockpiling, services family accommodation and to ringfence 5% of the budget as R&D. These are costed and come to about £8bn more than the money pledged to raise the budget to 2.5%. They also want to create a new strategic HQ, and to create a plan for defence and resilliance. Presumable the latter will have recommendations that will also have a cost.

          • 5% R&D is something I wouldn’t shed a tear over if it was scrapped. We obviously need some R&D budget to develop policies and tactics, but we shouldn’t be trying to develop new technologies on our own, which is many cases in unnecessary duplication of work allies are doing.

            5% is £2bn-£3bn per year, a fair bit of which could be better spent on equipment etc.

          • My guess is R&D increase was GCAP. They didn’t want to miss an opportunity to double announce using different words.

          • There’s a big difference between ambitions and contracted expenditure. There’s no equivalent to the labour order for carriers with no extra funding to pay for them.

      • Labour don’t even mention 2.5% in their manifesto (easily found on their website). Their manifesto is 19 pages long, full of pictures and large text. The conservative manifesto is 80 pages long with lots of small text and policy details. Starmer is winging it.

        The conservative manifesto literally says “Boosting defence spending to our new NATO standard of 2.5% of GDP by 2030”.

          • Labour is committed to spending 2.5% of GDP on defence as soon as we can,

            This is what is written above. The “soon as we can” carries a lot of weight.

      • Just vote Labour and have done with it. Labour cuts under Blair/Brown were higher than this government. FACT. If you don’t believe me look it up.

        • I’m seen on here as the “ORBAT Man” Geoff.
          I’ve been trying in vain to highlight what you say for years.
          But it seems when it comes to the past, so pre 2010, beyond the Conservatives, my ORBAT knowledge is suddenly doubted, or plain ignored.
          Funny, as it’s as sharp then as now.
          It fades before 1995 timeframe, then I’m on softer ground.
          Have a cuppa mate, enjoy the day.
          Nothing else to do but watch the spectacle unfold.
          As one Labour supporting poster on this site said to me privately
          “Defence is about to go down the shitter”
          I pray he’s wrong.

          • Well my friend, it has happened. We have Labour. Two positive things have come out of this election. First is that the SNP habe been destroyed so hopefully the Union is safe. Second is that more people voted centre right than for Labour and the Labour vote only went up two per cent. Reform has given Labour power but the voters don’t have faith enough in Labour to make the direct switch. Most don’t trust Labour. They want a proper Conservative Party, not a bunch of infighters. 🙂

          • Yes, my take too. SNP still control Scots parliament with local council seats, need to see those lost too.
            I feel so strongly about the Union I’d happily go back to the EU if it meant saving the Union. And that’s saying something with my record!
            Pity Penny M lost her seat. I could have followed her. Maybe Hunt?

          • We seem to very alike Danielle. The Union is vital in my eyes, and must be maintained. I had Penny down as a potential P.M., and I did support J.H. when Boris was elected. It’a a great pity that one or the other wasn’t elected at the time. I can’t help but think it would have saved the country a lot of anguish. Now I suppose we wait and see.

          • Well I’m Reform as you know, as a disenchanted Tory. I flip flop between the two as I see the circumstances. Tories to see off the Marxists, Farage when Brexit was in the balance. Now they’ve imploded on so many levels I’ve put the boot in like so many others supporting Nigel.
            Covid and UKR really didn’t help matters, but it’s like those impacts on the economy don’t exist in the lefts fairyland world.
            Penny M must be devastated. I see no one else with the experience of Hunt. Feel Penny may have impacted more with ordinary folk and I could have returned to Tory blue with her.
            The globalist side of the Tories got their man. And here we are.

          • Again I’ve voted for both. I even voted Labour once! The biggest problem with the right is, where is the leader coming from? Nigel F. is Reform but won’t be acceptable to the Tories,many of whom are already blaming him for their defeat. As for the Tories it’s difficult to work out who is a candidate. Currently the front runners I suppose are the likes of Tom Tugendhat; Kemi B.; Suella B.; Priti P.; ??? To be honest, even if I had the opportunity, I wouldn’t vote for any of them. Interesting times ahead methinks. 🙄

          • Labour!? Wash your mouth out!
            I agree, I don’t see any one obvious apart from Hunt, and he’s just tarnished with the old regime.

          • My uncle was old time Labour in a city ward where I lived at the time. A good “care for the people” councillor. I also had a liberal aunt but we had better not go into that! 😷

    • Nope, they changed the wording to 2.5% as soon as possible…so one has said by 2030 the other as soon as possible….in reality there is no difference between those promises.

    • That’s broadcast media. Newspapers and journals can discuss this stuff. Think of the headlines over the years. What’s important is accuracy.

      ipso.co.uk/news-press-releases/blog/ipso-blog-election-reporting-faqs/

    • It’s fine..if it’s a paper or internet there is no regulation…it’s only TV…look at the headlines of the papers..they are all as political as you can get today.

  7. If I try I think I could just get a cigarette paper between the Tory and Labour policies, but I have a busy afternoon.

    • Hi mate, would disagree slightly with that, we live in a democracy, where its every ones right to decide whether or not they wish to vote I believe. Personally I just have, and would strongly recommend that everyone does, but its not a duty or requirement per se!

      • Hi mate, I use duty in the “moral obligation” sense of the word.

        Im a firm believer in the works of Angus Campbell….

        basically the cost of gaining suffrage and the risk of losing suffrage for future generations places a duty on everyone in a democracy.

        “citizens have a duty to vote even when these citizens rightly believe their favored party or candidate has no serious chance of winning”(Campbell, Gurin, and Mill 1954, the voter decides)

        • Sorry don’t agree, voting for the sake of it just gives credibility to the winner. So if I don’t want Tory I protest vote, so the the political party I vote for will take it as an endorsement even though it was in protest I also elevate the turnout giving the win more credibility where in fact I didn’t like the alternative either. It the 2 fruit sellers at the market again both selling rotten fruit, why even bother buying.

          • Yes but actually you can always spoil your ballet..as a way to say you don’t like any option..but there is usually number of different types of candidates you can pick from…look at the number of independents that stood….refusing to vote is essentially cutting your nose off to spite your face. Once people completely disengage with democracy…it’s only a short step to saying it’s not needed. Western democracies and universal suffrage are in the scope of human history still a young experiment..even in the oldest parliamentary democracy we only got universal suffrage within a still living person’s lifetime…and democracies have and do fall if the Demos disengage.

            Personally I would actually like to see an abstention box on the ballot paper so the “spoilt ballot” can be more formal..and people encouraged to do that…not voting is not a “protest” or an “abstention” it’s a none participation and very damaging.

      • Abstaining is valid, politicians will take a vote as an endorsement even if its in protest against the opposing party. Also a high turnout gives the winner credibility, low turn out sends a very powerful message. Finally from a personal perspective you have the benefit of being able to say well I didn’t support any of this.

        As you say in a democracy people have the right to say I don’t believe in any of you and therefore for my support you’ll need to do better.

        If people really don’t want to not vote but want to appease those who want to discredit them by saying ‘you didn’t vote so I’m going to ignore you’ then vote MRL party its a good as abstaining, some might even say their policies are more credible 😀

        • Yet Labour win by a landslide , with what % of the voting population?
          And Reform get 4 seats, against Lib Dems 71, despite having a greater share of the vote!! 😆
          That’s what FPTP is for, to feather the nests of the big 2.

          • We do need to consider proportional representation, essentially now we have 7 valid parties each with a vote share…..

            in reality the biggest winner in FPTP was probably the SNP who became the 3rd party with a couple of percent of the vote.

          • I think they’ll openly admit ET has landed before they do that. The establishment looks after itself.

          • Labout got 33.7% of vote share – under PR that would have been 219 seats, rather than 412.
            I agree with you. FPTP does not reflect the voting pattern of the electorate.

    • Many didn’t initial figures are 10% lower than last election, lowest in 20 years something like 60% turn out, Labour secure 30ish % of 60% of the electorate, so 20% of he voting public but 2/3 of parliament. That’s first past the post voting though.

      I’m a fan on FPtP as it mean less less likely to have hung parliaments but we have now more parties and a disengaged public so perhaps we need a change.

      • To be honest other nations work perfectly well with a large number of parties and coalitions….the UK and US are more exceptions than the rule.

  10. It’s a good article, summarising all parties defence comments and lack of real commitment in some cases.
    Totally irrelevant though, as I suspect the great many here, ourselves included, did not vote with defence in mind.
    As they’re all hopeless.

    • I must admit defence commitments aren’t the main factor that decide my vote, but if I was on the fence about which party to vote for, their attitude towards defence could swing it.

  11. Looks like we are going to find out Labour’s commitment to the armed forces and I think people are in for a shock.

    • Yeah, the uplift in spending will need to come for growth according to Labour but its more complex, I’ll keep the numbers simple but as an example if we grow GDP by 10% but increase population by 15% then we have reduced GDP/Capita. Government will need to spend 15% more on services but tax take won’t cover it as tax take is generally related to GDP at 10%. So even managing 2% on defence will be difficult as public finance could be more stress. As a minimum Labour will need to grow GDP in line with population growth to match 2%. However, even at that it will leave government finance quite precarious. Labours plan will require a serious up tick in GDP per capita to be achievable without more tax or borrowing. They will of course get more tax by not raising thresholds, like the Tories. But it could become a big drag in productivity people aren’t inclined to want to earn more you to have half of it taken by the government.

      • Graham in the coming months & years we will have ample opportunity to debate the new Governments committment to the security of the country. Kier has not pulled his punches with the last Government yet his future plans seem wafer thin – possibly non-existant. He is in the driving seat now. The priorities of his voters and the vast majority of his MPs will be on domestic matters. Does he understand the importance of defence and indeed does he care?

        • Thanks Mark for fleshing out your earlier comment.

          I am reasonably convinced that Defence is low down Keir’s priority list, perhaps a shade lower than it was on Rishi’s priority list. Starmer will focus on fixing broken areas of Government that most electors matter about (NHS, Education, Housing, the small boats) and in trying to reduce the tax/NIC burden of the low-income folk. In short he will focus on his 6 pledges:

          1.Sticking to tough spending rules in order to deliver economic stability
          2.Setting up Great British Energy, a publicly owned clean power energy company
          3.Cutting NHS waiting lists by providing 40,000 more appointments each week – funded by tackling tax avoidance and non-dom loopholes.
          4.Launching a border security command to stop the gangs arranging small boat crossings
          5.Providing more neighbourhood police officers to reduce antisocial behaviour and introduced new penalties for offenders
          6.Recruiting 6,500 teachers, paid for through ending tax breaks for private schools.

          Defence may not even get a mention in the Autumn budget on the grounds that the SDSR has yet to report. Support to Ukraine will continue and Starmer will want to visit Zelensky this side of Xmas – that is when he might talk about Defence – ie Ukraine’s Defence!

          Healey will do lots of smiley visits to military units. He might start to tackle the problems of the procurement system, if that doesn’t mean a monetary spend. Not much substantive will happen this side of the SDSR report beng unveiled. Blair’s government took about 14 months on their SDR!

  12. Money is often not spent wisely, vested interests seem to choose options that are more expensive with unique supply chains that cause part shortages and delays . Poland gets much better value for money spent. More unwisely spent money is counter productive .

    • What will he do? Watch out for any new pyramid selling schemes telling you how to become rich and infamous.

  14. This was a tough election. Do I vote for Globalists, or the Globalists. Maybe the Globalists are the right choice. I was thinking of voting for the Globalists but then the Globalists called me a bad word and now I thinking maybe I should vote for the Globalists.

  15. Annnd Nigel Farage is now an MP! ✌👊
    Having listened to his speeches so many times over the years in the European Parliament it’s going to be hilarious how he holds Parliament to account.
    There was a one fingered emoji I’d love to have used….

    • Yeah and he has four mates with him. All for 14.3% of the vote. Put the right of centre parties out of Government for four years and ironically opened the flood gates to immigration which I thought he wanted to avoid. What a tw*t.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here