With Labour’s election win, the party is set to roll out its plans for defence.
The new Labour government has outlined a range of policies on the UK’s defence capabilities, supporting armed forces personnel and veterans and enhancing international cooperation.
Here’s a look at what the new government has pledged to do.
Strategic Defence Review
One of Labour’s first steps will be to launch a comprehensive review of the UK’s defence needs. This will involve assessing the threats we face and figuring out what capabilities are needed to tackle them.
- Quote: “We will launch a Strategic Defence Review to assess the threats we face and the capabilities needed to address them.”
Support for Armed Forces and Veterans
Labour has promised to back the men and women who serve in the armed forces, as well as veterans. They plan to put the Armed Forces Covenant into law and set up an independent Armed Forces Commissioner to ensure service life improvements. Veterans will get better access to mental health care, job assistance, and housing support. Plus, Labour intends to scrap visa fees for non-UK veterans who have served for at least four years and their families.
- Quote: “Labour will ensure veterans have access to the mental health, employment, and housing support and in other areas they need.”
Defence Industrial Strategy
Labour wants to strengthen the UK’s defence industry by aligning it with the country’s security and economic goals. This involves supporting domestic businesses, ensuring resilient supply chains, and promoting innovation. Labour also plans to reform procurement to reduce waste and create long-term partnerships between businesses and the government.
- Quote: “Labour will bring forward a defence industrial strategy aligning our security and economic priorities.”
Leadership and Accountability
To improve leadership and accountability within the defence sector, Labour will establish a military strategic headquarters and appoint a national armaments director. This aims to ensure quicker delivery of defence initiatives and better value for money.
- Quote: “Labour will establish a fully functioning military strategic headquarters and a national armaments director to create a strong defence centre.”
Support for Ukraine
Labour remains committed to supporting Ukraine amid its conflict with Russia. They plan to maintain military, financial, diplomatic, and political support, and back efforts to hold Russia accountable for its actions. Labour also supports creating a path for Ukraine to join NATO.
- Quote: “Labour will support efforts to hold Putin’s Russia to account for its illegal war, backing calls for a Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression.”
Tackling Corruption and Money Laundering
Labour plans to work with international partners to fight corruption and money laundering, including actions in Britain, Crown Dependencies, and British Overseas Territories.
- Quote: “Labour will also work with our allies and international financial centres to tackle corruption and money laundering.”
Commitment to AUKUS and Relations with China
Labour is committed to the AUKUS partnership with Australia and the United States, aiming to ensure it benefits both security and the economy. Regarding China, Labour seeks a strategic approach that involves cooperation, competition, and challenge as needed.
- Quote: “Labour is fully committed to AUKUS, the trilateral security partnership with Australia and the United States.”
Protecting British Overseas Territories
Labour has pledged to defend the sovereignty and self-determination of British Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies, including the Falklands and Gibraltar.
- Quote: “Labour will always defend their sovereignty and right to self-determination.”
These plans include a thorough review of defence needs, reforms to support the domestic defence industry, and continued support for international alliances. Can they do it? Time will tell.
We don’t need another Strategic Defence Review!!We need the military to get on with the restructuring and grab a pair of balls and say.. “this is what you need to buy us” ..
We need to stop pressing the RESET button and start making progress
The military do say what they need – they produce Requirements documents after internal discussion and research. The Equipment Plan is the ‘shopping list’.
Good point but that assumes no change in national needs and aspirations as decided by the new government. So likely work for the general staff to turn those into something actionable, informed by what has been learnt since the last SDR. Peace Dividend!?!
Even with the same list of requirements there might be different priorities so a decent review is a good idea before spending 2% of GDP.
The Industrial Strategy and improvements to Procurement have both been suggested in this parish so more of the same does seem like a mistake.
Yes. Invariably the Threat has not diminished since the Staff Requirement was written, such that fewer equipments are militarily required at ISD. But the national need has changed to make it desirable to spend a few more £bn on the NHS, Welfare and Education – and Defence is the easiest place to rob from!
The illegal war in Ukraine is strong evidence that the Peace Dividend was a delusion and the terrorist state hasn’t changed its criminal intent to expand their empire. USSR 2.0
So the evidence is available to decide the correct priorities especially as the cost of living crisis is due to transport. energy and food impacts of the invasion.
Happily the Ukrainian destruction of 40% of RF oil refinery capability means they have to export oil instead, so lowering the market prices. That also increases RF inflation which speeds the economic and political collapse of the regime..
I think the illusory nature of the Peace Dividend was evident way before the Feb 2022 invasion of Ukraine. In late 1990 we deployed large forces to Saudi Arabia on Op Desert Shield and embarked on divisional level warfighting the following year in Gulf War 1.
But to be relevant to the USSR 2.0 project you are right.
So you want a review of what the military wants, so we know what prioritise. There’s a word for that… I think it’s called a strategic defense review, but of course your aren’t allowed to agree with them doing it even though it’s what you want because it’s labour.
I thought we were doing all this now. What I, and many others want to know is …Labour will increase defence spending to ensure that our armed forces are fully equipped and maintained for what we ask them to do.
I am watching you, Labour. Every slightest cut, I will be highlighting.
My bet is that the much elusive T32 will disappear first, what we never had, we never miss !
I suspect that it will be replaced by a second batch of T31.
It’s not just cuts. With the march of new tech there will be gaps in our defences which will need plugging. We will need new stuff to eliminate their new stuff.
first thing to do now that SNP has had a melt down is to hold a referendum to see if Scotland should be booted out of the union, then bring back ship building to the three other union members. Relax, I’m just joshing.
You got me, I bit, then read the last bit. I’d just wait to see how the next 2 years pans out, next Scottish Elections are May 2026 and after last night, things could be very different. I always thought the UK Government should just acknowledge that Scottish Independance is an issue that is never going to go away. But is an ongoing hastle we can all do without for a while (and I am a Scot). Just tell the SNP they can have another Referndum as per Nicholas stated timeframe of once in a generation. So May 2098 which… Read more »
OK thanks for seeing it for what it was and what it was meant to be, I’m 50% Scottish ish too, the last few decades have just been cringeworthy really, what with that Salmon bloke, the horrendously racist and biased Nicola Sturgeon and that rather square peg in a round hole other bloke. let’s just hope that this latest election can galvanise this great (Still) Union and move on.
This issue upsets and worries me still.
I agree, way way way in the future.
unfortunately the standard definition of a generation is 15-20 years…so once in a generation is not that long…out to 2034.
Precisely.
Agreed, it upsets me the idea of the union breaking up, Scotland is the Union and the people on these soggy overcast Islands need to stick together and focus on what unifies us.
Indeed, Stronger Defence,Solid Economy( become more self relient,invest in UK buisness..especially food industry..cut waste) and bring a balance ( povety needs to be seriously addressed ! ) Labour deserve a chance, just hope they dont squander it !
Careful i might send you a box of midges 😁
I’d prefer a haggis 😄
Honestly in regards to the future security of the nation one of the most important jobs for the next few years will be getting ready to get the SNP voted from office…separatist movements are one of the most deadly things a nation has to manage…especially one that has power in a regional government.If Labour can do that they have probably made the single biggest contribution to the security of our nation since the end of the Cold War.
You mean, the left won’t lean on Starmer and give them a second referendum? To the possible ruin of the UK?
Would not surprise me. He wanted another Brexit one
Nope, Labour are most definitely not a party that has ever been home to Scottish Nationalism. They have just got their seats back…breaking the SNP will be a key job.
And I’d support them in that.
To be honest the breaking of the SNP was to my mind one of the single most important jobs for this election…Simply put we needed a Labour government, even if it does nothing more than break the SNPs hold….it was to my mind the fundamental reason we had to get rid of the conservative government, ( apart from the fact they had slipped into corrupt incompetence). The conservative government had become to toxic to Scotland and had enabling the separatists because of this.
I get your point but much of the anti Tory stuff is totally irrational. Whatever else they have done, within the limits of their powers in Devolved Scotland; the one good thing if nothing else and that was to revitalise a continued Scots Ship Building industry despite the SNP Ferries disaster.
Yes, I can agree on that, it was obvious to see. Which is why I too was rooting for Labour to do well in Scotland.
Shame, as I recall Scots used to be staunch conservatives.
That’s how I see it, I stayed up to watch the election and I literally punched the air when I saw the Exit poll predicting the SNP to lose about 80% of its seats. I see Labour as more unifying than the Kak handed conservatives, both Scots and English voting for the dominant party of the UK to govern must be a good thing, this wasn’t possible under the conservative. I just hope Labour now don’t start slyly backsliding on Defence and rob it for funds.
looks like the SNP are well and truly broken this time. In fact, they have lost way more as a % than even the privileged elite.
Doubt it. Not interested in allocating the time or hassle. My guess is they will negotiate quick deals to smooth import checks at ports by agreeing to adopt EU food and plant standards and adopting EU pharma standards to the extent that that is contributing to drug shortages in pharmacies. I also think they will try to get back into the Erasmus scheme for student exchanges. That’s about it I think.
Hope you are right but who knows. IMO we’d be mad to go back with reducing our sovereignty with a declining organisation.
All the Runes say no return or single market. To be honest I think the EU would not entertain an application to rejoin. A case of once bitten twice shy. EU food and pharma standards are good. I don’t any point in duplicating the work. The border checks on EU food are delaying trucks, increasing supermarket prices and killing off UK food exports to the EU. Not a question of sovereignty, more like cutting off our nose to spite our face. Anyway, the EU won’t allow us to ‘cherry pick’ so they probably won’t agree to it’s probably academic.
So re reading all that good stuff, and it is good, the most obvious omission is that it’s blindingly obvious to anyone for the last 27 years that the armed forces are too small.
Deafening silence. Thus the warnings and endless worry for many.
Needs to be 50% more of everything with threats like never before since 1945.
I make that 3.0+% of GDP being entirely reasonable and affordable. Look at Italy and see how they are investing.
As said many many times, comparisons with Italy and Poland are not valid.
I’d be amazed if Labour gives more money, amazed.
As I posted above, I do think it is reasonable to inquire how Italy manages to fund so much equipment. It may be, also in France, that the full costs of kit procured from state owned or controlled suppliers are understated by industrial subsidies.. But both these countries also have significantly higher personnel numbers, without even counting paramilitary forces. How?
Half the transport budget and add it to the defence budget for 2 yrs.. would make a big difference..might sharpen our defence a little !
Unfortunately Daniele…I’m not sure what would shake this nation out of its delusion around defence.
Most people just don’t get that the easiest way to prevent a war is to spend on armed forces as a deterrent..and not spending on deterrence level forces just costs in lives and money…
Wish I could like this comment.
Agreed, nukes shouldn’t be our only deterrent. The entire military should be a deterrent.
Lots of talk now lets see how they walk. No matter there is little cash around anyway. What is needed is major reforms in all the Gov Depts starting with the NHS and energy sectors. Stop wasting money in the MOD like has been the case for many a year with nothing shown for it. We need to do our jobs smarter not harder with the right kit. We are an island and therefore the security of the sea and air come first before land. The Army needs to go back to local Yeomanry Units that support the full time… Read more »
You mean raise AR regiments along county lines?
The AR already has some Yeomanry formations.
Dont kid me Labour will never fix the civil service, NHS or Energy. They will throw other peoples good money at them.
Sounds like you are not a fan of expeditionary operations.
Any strategic defence review must address the fundamental questions that Britain has avoided confronting for the last several decades. Is Britain still a global military/economic power? Does Britian want to remain a global power? If so, then does Britian have the resources and will to remain one? It’s military currently certainly doesn’t have the resources to function as one. Are the citizens of the UK willing to expend the resources to become one? Is the UK economically capable of sustaining itself as a global power? Three American companies, Microsoft, NVIDIA, and Apple each have a market capitalization greater than the… Read more »
Before any final judgement is rendered by anyone, the new British government should be afforded the opportunity to conduct a SDR, in conjunction w/ the development of a definitive plan to increase defence expenditure to 2.5% of GDP. Remain convinced that level of funding would facilitate rearmament of RAF and RN, albeit slowly.
A global power is not necessarily one with superpower levels of military might.
Labour have been given a massive mandate, with an effective working majority of something like 183-187, with two more results still to declare. John Healey has been confirmed, as expected, as Defence Secretary. He is very experienced and widely respected. But we cannot go backwards. I live in hope..
Not sure about the mandate part. They won just 34% of the vote on a low turnout of 60%. That’s just 20% of the electorate and even less of the total adult population. Their vote share was up 2% but turnout was down 8%, so they actually got less votes than in their last wipeout election. But have benefited from tory voters not turning out or voting reform.
It’s the most disproportionate difference between vote share and seats share ever. Hardly a massive mandate.
And yet Thatcher wrecked our Industrial base on much the same. Hey ho.
And using your thoughts, she also never had a massive mandate but still caused carnage in the North.
Cheap imports from the far eat wrecked our industrial base, not Thatcher. It happened in every other western country too.
The result of companies following the money with no consideration for the strategic risks to sovereign capabilities of offshore manufacturing.
In the absence of tariffs to level the playing field against state support, intellectual property theft, the security concern enables prohibition of product akin to sanctions.
However it’s a binary approach with no room for market forces like tariffs. It does allow the supply chain to claim that its about standards and interoperability not national prejudice.
Given the CCP strategy for mercantile global dominance, I see no reason to apologise for defending sovereign capabilities.
Go back to school.
Very mature debate. Voted Labour I take it?
Let’s see those oh so logical policies meet reality. Then we’ll see who needs to “go back to school”.
No, I didn’t vote Labour but lived near Barrow in Furness during the Thatcher years when a military shipyard responsible for 30,000 jobs went down to 3 000, when British Alcan closed, when the coal trains stopped passing by because we started buying communist coal.
People have long memories and do not need pathetic counter factuals.
Every “Strategic Review” that I recall has resulted in cuts. I’d be astounded if this was any different.
Instead of yet another full blown defence review, I would like to see an enquiry into how Italy, spending just1.5% of a smaller GDP, can afford larger forces, well equipped with a lot of Italian made equipment. Even allowing for the cost of the nuclear deterrent, we appear to get less for our money. Why?
Since there is unlikely to be a significant increase in defence funding, getting more from the existing budget is the only way to fix the deficiencies.
What I expect is a retreat from Boris Johnson’s global Britain ambition, with a renewed emphasis on NATO.
We get so much less bang for our buck than virtually all other countries. It’s scandalous.
I know some of it is active training e.g. our pilots get way more flight hours than most european air forces. But that also wears out the airframes quicker (not to mention the fuel costs!). I’m not sure we’re striking the right balance. Increasingly more realistic flight simulators should be used to mitigate this.
Peter, in fairness Italy doesn’t have 7 SSN and 4SSBNs or 2QE2 carriers – expensive to acquire and to operate. I note you referenced this in your post, however I imagine this is likely to be sizable chunk of cash of the budget.
I’m no expert, but its likely the RN Type 45 and 26 programmes are considerably more expensive than Italy’s FREMMs.
A would applaud a proper defence review, WITHOUT treasury involvement !!
That is impossible. But the 1998 SDR was foreign policy-led, not Treasury-driven. HMT were involved only after the military analysis had been done.
Nothing is impossible, the question is if you wish to defend the country and its interests are not.
The domestic and foreign policy needs to be set first and then the defence review can follow and the funds found.
Or to be blunt , don’t bother.
Instead of the current policy of setting our foreign and domestic policy and expecting the MoD to “ somehow” back it on a fiver
The Treasury always get involved in Defence – the question is whether their involvement is sometimes counter-productive to effective Defence. The Treasury is not bothered in defending the country – that is not their job. But they should certainly not set the Defence agenda ie they should not be constraining a foreign policy, security and defence review at the outset. The process of having an IR first and then a DCP has worked well in theory, but not always in practice. IR Refresh23 and its associated DCP which specifically looked at lessons from the Russo-Ukraine war did not conclude there… Read more »
You seem hell bent on educating me on everything I never said the treasury should not be involved , they after all need to find the money. However I am fed up to the back teeth of this country making 2 % by accountancy tricks. The announcements of we are buying X amount of ships, aircraft carriers, planes etc only for the number to be halfed because we can’t afford it. One would assume that some thought was put into the original figure before we suddenly decided to vastly reduce it. And we end up with the bare minimum to… Read more »
Sorry, I clearly misunderstood your point. I too was and still am sick of those accounting tricks. We really spend under the stated 2.3% of GDP figure on deliverable defence capability. The Staff Requirement written by the appropriate Service very clearly states by what new equipment is required in terms of capability, how many, and where they should go. The Navy needed, not merely wanted, but needed 12 x T45 destroyers. Cut to 8 then 6. We in the army suffered badly – just a few examples – way back, in the mid-80s, the Warrior funding was reduced such that… Read more »
You highlighting the Nimrod is a very valid point. It was totally unsuitable aircraft, great at maritime patrol but in no way suitable to be converted to Airborne early warning. Time and time again cost cutting measures forced on us by the treasury almost always end up with us paying more. We learned the lesson of the lack of airborne early warning during the Falklands. But have we got a credible airborne early warning now for the QE carriers No!! We the rise of more advanced anti ship and hypersonic the need for a credible early warning that can allow… Read more »
100% However, also critical is manpower, simply not enough bayonets, sailors, airmen; but, how as a nation do we pay the pensions? Well: This cobblers with mental health needs to be challenged and people told to grow a pair. Two of us on here have struggled with dementia in our parents and I certainly didn’t ask for intervention, the other poster reached out to us on this forum. However, people who identify as a daisy should be told to give their head a wobble and Kemi Badenoch actually got it right – born a man, you’re a man; the NHS… Read more »
I was talking about the upgraded MPA, the Nimrod MRA.4, rather than the AEW version from many, many years ago. Carrier AEW – always was a surprise that there was no credible replacement for the Fairey Gannet when we adopted the Invincible-class carriers – many lives lost in the Falklands conflict as you suggest. Interesting that you then mention HMS Valiant as she had an air alert role on Op Corporate. [She arrived in the war zone on 17 May and transmitted more than 300 early air-warning alerts and spent 101 days on patrol off Argentina’s Patagonian coast]. I had… Read more »
Sorry brain fade over over drive rant mode , I meant HMS Vanguard and her refit which took longer than it did to build her.
Britain is no longer a Global power to say otherwise is a delusion or a lie, We need to cut our cloth to suit.
The services are top heavy with Admirals Generals etc, We should have a genuine reorganization lose the 3 branches & have fit for purpose Marine’s style military.
Tradition can be damned.
I like posts like this where apparently we are saying we are a global superpower? Who is saying that? Define a global power? The UK is a medium power, or major power. I don’t think the services are top heavy. But I understand how the military and MoD are organised and structured, so I can understand why this old chestnut keeps surfacing. There have already been multiple culls of 1* and above, with Corps now led by Colonels, for example. Perhaps the tea lady or a NCO should be put in charge of directorates of hundreds of people with hundreds… Read more »
Daniele, which Corps are led by Colonels?
Corps of Royal Military Police is effectively a Brigade+ unit led by a Brig, but, Corps as in fighty, deployable units, not sure a Col is in charge…
Just saying.
Hi mate.
I’m not on about the deployable formations, as yes, they’re Brigadeers.
I’m referring to the administrative head of certain Corps. I’d read these positions had been downgraded to Colonel from Brigadeer.
Example, I believe Director Royal Artillery used to be a Brigadeer.
Then you have ceremonial heads like Master of Signals, Master General of Logistics, guiding their Corps, but these are not actual field commands. They still seem to be at Maj General rank.
Hi Bud,
Got me, we need a serving soldier to answer that one but some Corps are quite small so maybe don’t need the rank.
Victoria to E Croydon was quite smooth, can’t say the same for the WCML – except Rugby, never saw it.
Trains over a coffee next weekend?
Agree, I only report what I learn through study, and I may be incorrect here. Need a serving soldier. Rugby? That area was massively remodeled, with avoiding lines on the Up, Down main, so you either went past in a blur or you were on the Northampton branch and bypassed it! Not next weekend, no. Will sort something at some point. One, I’m nights, two, most weekends I work, three, Dad died the other day, just 7 months after mum. Life’s a bit hectic trying to be in 3 places at once, work full time, and fit in something called… Read more »
Please accept my condolences, I really am sorry for your loss. Hugs, look up and please remain positive.
Oh, I am! Mum was different, I was an awful lot closer to her. Had a different relationship with my Dad, still loved him if course, just not as close as your mother.
We need to clear his home, so an awful lot to do, and its only me and my wife to do it.
Hi Daniele.
I am sorry to hear the loss of your Dad so soon after losing your Mum. It is an awful thing to have to cope with, however it is true that time is the great healer.
No one can take way your memoires of your folks, they remain yours alone to cherish.
All the best, Chris
Thanks mate.
Jas, what do you mean by a Global power? Who would you consider are Global powers?
From US News:
“Power in the global arena is multifaceted, encompassing political influence, economic resources, and military might. Each country’s power indicates its prowess in multiple aspects, including economic and political influence, strength in international alliances, and impactful military power. The rankings of the top 10 powerful countries in the world in 2024 are compiled by US News with the following methodology:
Guess where UK was ranked?
All too often defence reviews are about reducing the defence budget and deciding the least worst places to cut. An exception being the Tories 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review where the hatchet fell everywhere without any apparent consideration of the immediate or long-term impacts impacts – cue Libya a few months later. Arguably the best defence review of the last 50 years was Labour’s Strategic Defence Review in 1997. But it all went pear shaped within a few years due to a lack of the extra money required to implement it, and the events of 9/11. I see that… Read more »
What matters here is the Government prioritising defence over other domestic issues and the level of committment given. It is good to note what has been promised however is that all that is needed and how responsive will the Government be in providing extra stuff.
I’ll summarise, Labour plan to waffle. In 5 years time I would be surprised, if we have a single extra tank, over what has already been planned. There is no money, Sunak said there wasn’t. Reeves said yesterday, there was ‘very little’. Covid and the cost of living have emptied the bank. Still we could be worse off. The BBC was discussing the prospect of France going bankrupt the other day.
There is a lot of money. By credit and printing creation was huge.
It is just UK media and population do not care for tanks, warships or air defence.
We are going to be stuffed; and not the Christmas turkey variety.
Should Labour understand the mil-industrial complex and the benefits from exports, there might be hope except Labour will rail against arms exports and we go back to being stuffed.
Stratetic defence review = strategic massive cuts.
Surely the massive cuts have happened since the end of the Cold War in ’91 and especially in the Cameron era. Any further cuts now can surely only be of the salami type?
If anyone is still into liblabcon, we are fucked. These parties along with green, snp and plaid wish no good and are globalist wef lovers who answer to their masters who are bankers media and big crony corporaltists who are self serving and decline us. Do some homework and find out the truth.
And Labour will fuck with figures to make it look like 2.5 is being spent on frontline defence.
And the Cons did what?
I hope Labour get rid of UK only defence projects and start developing and buying international weapons. Also, I hope they reduce civilian managers at MoD to provide more front line service people.